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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds useful behavioral context by stating that results contain only metadata (id, title, url) and that full text requires a follow-up fetch call.

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 with no filler; the action and result are front-loaded, and the fetch follow-up earns its place.

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 one-parameter, read-only search tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description provides everything essential: purpose, searched resource, return fields, and the next step for full text. Nothing important 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 description coverage is 100% and the single query parameter is already described as a search query. The tool description does not add syntax, formatting, or example guidance, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly identifies a search action over site content and lists the returned document fields (id, title, url), so an agent knows what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool search_articles, which appears to overlap in purpose, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 makes the usage context clear: use it to find matching documents and then pass the returned id to fetch for full text. It does not, however, state when to prefer this tool over search_articles or other sibling tools.

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