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

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing about result count, ranking, pagination, or whether results are snippets vs full pages, which are the behaviors an agent would actually need for a search tool.

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, zero filler: the capability and the covered page types are front-loaded, then the sibling exclusions follow. Every clause carries information an agent can act on.

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, non-destructive search with annotations covering behavior hints, this is nearly sufficient: it says what is searched and where to go instead. The only real gap is expected result shape/size, which matters because there is no 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% and the single query parameter already ships with examples matching the description's examples. The description adds no query syntax (boolean, phrase, multi-term behavior) beyond what the schema states, so 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 concrete verb plus resource ("Find concept pages by words") and enumerates the content families covered (engine hubs, failure modes, recipes, symptoms, blogs, reference hubs), which is far more than a restatement of the name. It differentiates against find_part_number and lookup_vin, but leaves the overlap with get_symptoms, get_failure_modes and get_page unaddressed.

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 routing rules for two siblings: parts go to find_part_number, a specific truck goes to lookup_vin. No guidance for the other overlapping siblings (get_page, get_symptoms, get_failure_modes), so an agent could still pick search where a dedicated tool fits better.

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