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

The annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing that results are limited to stable id, title, and citable URL, and that complete content requires a separate fetch call. This gives the agent an accurate model of the tool's partial-result 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 sentences, no filler. The first sentence states the purpose and scope; the second provides return shape and the fetch hand-off. The most important information is front-loaded and 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 single-parameter search tool with full schema coverage, a safety profile in annotations, and an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it searches, what it returns, and how to obtain full content. No critical gaps are apparent.

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?

The schema already documents the single 'query' parameter with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning (e.g., query syntax, supported filters) beyond what the schema provides, but it also doesn't need to given the complete schema coverage.

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 ('Search') and resource ('authorized feedback') and clarifies that it returns sources with stable ids, titles, and citable URLs. The mention of using fetch for complete content distinguishes it from tools like search_comments and fetch, accurately framing its role as a pointer-returning search tool.

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 gives a clear usage context: use this tool to search across authorized feedback and obtain citable references, then follow up with fetch using the returned id for full content. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the routing instruction is strong enough for an agent to know the intended flow.

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