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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known; the description goes further by disclosing the exact return payload (title, URL, source type, highlighted snippet, id for get_documentation, total, has_more) and the pagination ceiling of 25. Since there is no output schema, this return-shape disclosure is the only place an agent learns what comes back and how to detect truncation.

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-loads the resource and scope, then the usage trigger, then the return contract and recovery steps — a sensible reading order with no filler sentences. The nested parenthetical listing API subtopics is dense and slightly interrupts flow, keeping it just short of a 5.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, exclusions, return fields, pagination limits, and refinement strategy — everything needed to call it correctly and interpret a thin result set. 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, but the description adds operational meaning beyond the field text: it frames source as a narrowing mechanism for weak result sets and pairs per_page with the has_more signal so the agent knows raising it is the escalation lever. That is real strategy guidance rather than a restatement of the enum.

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) and resource (Telerivet documentation), then enumerates the covered corpora and explicitly carves out the per-method API reference, naming get_method_schema as the alternative. An agent can distinguish it from get_documentation and get_method_schema without opening any 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use framing ('procedural, troubleshooting, feature, policy, developer, and company questions'), an explicit exclusion ('per-method API reference is NOT here; use get_method_schema'), and a concrete fallback path when results are weak (refine query, narrow by source, raise per_page).

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