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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the corpus size and composition, and the shape of each result (the questions a page answers plus its URL). It stops short of describing ranking or matching behavior.

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 zero waste: the first establishes the corpus, the second establishes the return shape. Both are front-loaded and 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 no output schema, the description usefully compensates by stating that results carry the questions each page answers and a URL, and by scoping the corpus. The main remaining gap is how matching works (keyword vs semantic) and whether results are ranked, which affects how an agent should phrase queries.

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%, with both query and limit already documented including an example query and the default limit of 5. The description adds no syntax, phrasing, or paging guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb (search) and resource (Shipshape Data's documentation), and quantifies the corpus (201 practical guides plus service and industry pages). It does not explicitly contrast itself with get_page or list_sections, so it falls short of a 5 despite being immediately understandable.

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 only implied by the verb 'search' – an agent can infer this is the discovery entry point before get_page, but the description never says when to choose it over the siblings or what to do with the results. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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