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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral specificity by stating it never resets, reconfigures, disassembles, or controls equipment, which reassures an agent about the non-invasive nature of the operation.

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 tightly written sentences accomplish a lot: they define the purpose, set safety expectations, and define the input type. There is no filler, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 simple one-parameter, read-only tool, the description explains what it does, what it does not do, and how the input should be interpreted. It does not describe the output format, but 'closest curated sections' and the absence of an output schema make the return concept reasonably clear.

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 parameter is already documented. The description adds meaning by clarifying that the input is search text and explicitly not an instruction to the server, which is a meaningful semantic guardrail beyond the schema's 'Device name, symptom or displayed error text.'

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 action ('Retrieve') and a clear resource: curated guest-safe technical-support sections for an installed device, appliance symptom, or error. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like search_property_knowledge, but the subject matter is distinct enough for an agent to recognize its purpose.

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 provides clear usage context: use it for guest-safe technical support content based on device/appliance symptoms or errors. It also gives an important guideline that the input must be search text, not a server instruction. It stops short of naming alternatives or explicit when-not-to-use conditions.

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