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

Goes beyond readOnlyHint/idempotentHint by describing result ordering ('best first') and the exact payload fields (title, URL, summary, date, author, type), plus the drafts-privacy/auth boundary. The only shortfall is that ordering semantics aren't quantified (relevance vs. date) and there is no mention of empty-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?

Front-loaded with the core search scope, then the return shape, then a routing sentence. The final sentence about drafts and Microsoft connection is slightly long and mixes in sibling-tool and auth context, but it earns its place by preventing a wrong tool choice.

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 three-parameter, fully documented read tool with an output schema, the description covers scope, return contents, ordering, and the draft boundary. Missing only minor operational details like empty-result handling and what the relevance ranking is based on.

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 100%, so query, type enum, and limit are already fully documented, including the default of 10 and the max of 25. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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) against a specific resource (TechFabric's published site) and enumerates the content types covered: blog posts, service and solution pages, case studies, city pages, events. An agent can distinguish it from list_posts or get_page without opening the 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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use get_page to read a result in full, use list_drafts for private drafts, and notes an engineer must connect with Microsoft to list or write them. It also states drafts are excluded from this tool's scope, which is an explicit when-not.

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