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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value by disclosing the result shape (title, URL, summary, date, author, type) and ranking behavior ('best first'), which the annotations cannot convey.

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, front-loaded with the scope and wrapped up with the natural next step. No filler or restated title content; 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is optional, yet the description still previews the fields. Scope, ranking and the follow-up tool are all covered. The only omission is any hint about result volume/pagination behavior, which is minor given the limit parameter and output schema.

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% — every parameter (query, type, limit) is documented in the schema itself with enums and bounds. The description adds nothing about parameter syntax or defaults; the only extra semantic is ranking order, which is not a parameter. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb (Search) plus the exact resource and content scope: 'TechFabric's published site: blog posts, service and solution pages, case studies, city pages and events.' An agent immediately knows the corpus being searched. It partially differentiates from siblings by pointing to get_page for full reads, but never contrasts itself with list_posts or get_services.

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?

'Read a result in full with get_page' gives a clear follow-up path, which is useful. However, it never says when to prefer search over the sibling listers (list_posts, get_services) or what happens when the query is too broad. Usage is implied by the query parameter rather than explicitly guided.

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