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

Annotations already declare a safe read-only, idempotent, open-world operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: threshold acts as a similarity floor and an empty result explicitly means nothing cleared it, which is useful operational detail.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The purpose and its key differentiator are front-loaded, and the threshold/empty-result detail follows compactly. Every clause 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?

With annotations covering safety and an output schema handling return values, the description only needs to convey purpose and usage semantics, which it does. The remaining gap is that pagination parameters (page/limit) and the relationship to sibling search tools are never addressed.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter burden. It explains threshold well (default 0.7, minimum similarity) and query is self-evident from the name, but 'page' and 'limit' (pagination and result count) go undocumented in both description and schema, leaving half the surface unexplained.

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?

States a specific action and resource ('search scans by meaning rather than exact words'), and the mechanism (comparing query with scanned page content) clearly differentiates it from keyword-based siblings like search_scans. It stops short of naming the exact alternative tool, but the contrast is unmistakable.

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 'by meaning rather than exact words' framing tells the agent when this is the right choice over literal-match search, and the example ('bank login page asking for card details') anchors the intended query style. No explicit when-not conditions or named alternatives are given, so it stays below a 5.

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