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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without prose. The description usefully adds that results include each guide's direct answer and URL, but says nothing about ranking, matching behavior, or result limits beyond the 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 tight sentences with zero filler; the purpose, audience, and return content are front-loaded. Every clause carries information.

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 does well to mention the return shape (matching guides with direct answer and URL), and annotations cover the read-only nature. However, it omits the undocumented 'limit' parameter behavior and any hint of how results are selected, leaving a small but real gap for a 2-param search tool.

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 only 50%: 'query' is documented but 'limit' (default 5, max 10) is not described in the schema, and the description adds no information about it. The description gives no syntax, phrasing guidance, or result-count semantics to compensate for the gap.

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 (Shruti Kaushik's research-backed GTM guides) plus the audience (B2B founders) and the topic domains covered. It's clear what the tool does, but it never names or contrasts itself with close siblings like answer_question or get_guide, so an agent can't distinguish them from the description alone.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool rather than answer_question, get_guide, or search_statistics, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The intended usage is only loosely implied by the phrase 'for B2B founders'.

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