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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the detail that results include a short excerpt, which is useful for setting output expectations, and it implicitly confirms the closed-world scope (openWorldHint=false) by specifying the exact corpus. This adds some context but does not go far beyond what annotations and the schema imply.

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?

The description is two sentences with zero wasted words. The primary action and scope are front-loaded, and the excerpt detail is placed naturally. Every sentence earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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?

The tool is a straightforward search operation with an output schema available (not shown here). The description covers what is searched, the result format, and the scope. It does not mention sorting, pagination, or other edge-case behaviors, but given the low complexity and the presence of annotations and output schema, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly. A note about broader search alternatives would improve completeness but is not essential.

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 both parameters are already well-documented in the schema. The description adds value by explaining that the query performs full-text search across multiple fields, which gives semantic meaning to the 'query' parameter, but it does not provide additional parameter-specific syntax or constraints beyond the schema. This aligns with the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the verb 'search' with a specific resource ('The Revenue AI Report articles') and enumerates the fields searched (titles, summaries, body text, keywords, FAQs). It also mentions the return of excerpts, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_site and search_tools that likely have broader or different scopes.

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 context for when to use the tool: when searching across the specified article corpus. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as 'for broader site search use search_site.' The scope is well-defined, so an agent can infer the appropriate context, but explicit routing to siblings would elevate this to a 5.

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