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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying the return cap of 5 safe document identities and explicitly excluding content chunks, embeddings, scores, prompts, and metadata—information an agent needs to know about the tool's output before calling it.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the purpose (search published support documents) and follows with the key constraint (returns at most 5 safe document identities, exclusions). Every word earns its place—no filler.

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?

All parameters are covered by the schema, the output schema exists (so return values are documented structurally), and the description fills gaps such as the return cap and exclusions. The tool is self-contained and includes enough sibling differentiation to guide correct invocation. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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%, with each parameter (query, locale, websiteId) having a description in the schema. The tool description adds no additional information about parameter usage beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb ('search'), a clear resource ('published support documents'), and the scope ('one organization-owned Supovia website'). It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like list_documents (which lists documents) and get_document (which retrieves a specific document) because it is a semantic search operation.

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 clearly implies usage for finding relevant documents by query on a specific website, but it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or reference alternatives. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer it should be used for search rather than listing or retrieval, but explicit exclusions are missing.

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