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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description discloses the result contract: up to 8 short passages, each with a match label (strong/related/weak), title, date, read link, optional watch link, and an id for get_document — valuable detail given there is no 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?

The core instruction is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the example phrasings are compact illustrations rather than filler. It is dense with useful content, though the long inline list of example questions and return fields makes it a somewhat heavy single block.

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 two-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: when to reach for it, how to phrase the query, how many results come back, and what fields each result carries including the id for follow-up. Nothing material is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3, and the description earns a bump by clarifying intent: the query should be plain-words phrasing of the owner's question ('however it's worded') and the result volume is capped at 8 short passages. It does not restate the limit's default of 5 or its 1-8 bounds, which the schema already handles.

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 and resource ('Search the library') plus the domain it searches ('what the Small Business Owners Community has learned') and the expected return shape. It implicitly separates itself from siblings by saying the returned id is 'to pass to get_document', so an agent can tell it apart from get_document and whats_new without opening either schema.

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?

It gives an explicit priority instruction ('Use this first for any small business question') and backs it with paraphrased example phrasings ('raise my prices', 'a client won't pay', 'nobody to talk to about the business') that show the breadth of acceptable queries. The handoff to get_document covers the natural next step, leaving little to inference.

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