Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful behavioral detail about the return content ('matches with links and .md mirrors'), but does not disclose potential limits, ordering, pagination, or failure modes.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences with no redundant filler. The core action and scope are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence usefully describes the output. Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only search tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description explains the search scope and the returned artifact. It does not specify result limits or ordering, but given the low complexity and strong annotations, the remaining gaps are minor.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining that the query parameter is a keyword and specifying which fields are searched ('name, summary, title'). This adds real meaning beyond the schema's bare string type, though it does not describe input formatting expectations.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses the specific verb 'Search' with a clear resource ('providers and articles') and identifies the keyword fields ('name, summary, title'). It naturally distinguishes itself from siblings like list_providers/list_articles (enumeration) and get_provider/get_article (direct retrieval) by framing this as a keyword-driven lookup.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage: use this tool when you have a keyword to find matching providers or articles. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer it over alternatives, such as using list_* for browsing all items or get_* for direct access by known identifier.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.