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

The annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive search with a closed-world scope. The description adds useful return context ('ranked sections with their page URLs') but does not explain ranking behavior, result limits, or other operational traits beyond the annotations and output schema.

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 filler: the first defines scope and coverage, the second states the return format. The information is front-loaded and every clause contributes.

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 one-parameter, read-only search tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description is largely complete. The main remaining gap is explicit routing guidance against the direct get_* siblings.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the single query parameter is already documented as 'What to look for.' The description adds no further meaning about query syntax, matching behavior, or constraints, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Keyword search') and resource scope ('everything Samplyn publishes about itself'), then enumerates the covered content types. It is clearly distinct from single-resource siblings like get_pricing or get_faq, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied: search across all Samplyn content when looking for a keyword rather than retrieving one known resource directly. However, the description does not explicitly say when to prefer this over the specific get_* tools or compare_with.

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