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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the indexed corpus and the return shape ('matching titles with canonical URLs'), though it says nothing about result ordering or paging behavior.

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, front-loaded with the verb+resource and then the corpus list. The enumeration of content types is long but each item earns its place by clarifying search scope; nothing is redundant filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly takes on the return-value burden by stating that matching titles and canonical URLs come back. For a read-only, two-parameter search tool with full annotation coverage, that is sufficient — only pagination/ordering semantics are unaddressed.

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% — both 'query' (free-text matched against titles, descriptions, topics) and 'limit' (1-25, default 10) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or matching-behavior detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the 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 specific verb (Search) and resource (Rankwise's public library), then enumerates exactly what's indexed: guides, glossary terms, comparisons, free tools, AI crawler directory, AI engine pages. This clearly distinguishes it from the workspace-scoped siblings (list_articles, list_briefs, list_keywords), which operate on user data rather than the public library.

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?

Usage is implied by the word 'public library' — an agent can infer this is for discovering Rankwise-hosted reference content rather than the user's own workspace items. However, it never explicitly states when to reach for this versus a sibling like list_rankwise_sitemaps, nor does it set any exclusions.

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