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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the corpus spans guides, projects, tender issuers, winning companies, and pages, but does not explain result ranking, how query matching works, or other behavioral details beyond the schema.

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 searchable corpus and followed by concrete usage examples. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant restatement of the schema.

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 read-only search tool with no output schema, the definition covers the searchable content types and gives examples, but leaves gaps around result ordering, query syntax, and the missing 'Sector' kind. It is adequate but not complete enough to fully guide an agent on expected search behavior.

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 67%, with the kind enum restricted to one kind of result and max_results capped and defaulted. The description loosely maps several enum values to natural-language content types, but it omits the 'Sector' kind entirely and adds no detail about query semantics or how kind interacts with query.

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 gives a specific verb (Search) and resource, and enumerates the site's content types: guides, upcoming projects, tender issuers, winning companies, and pages. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like search_tenders or search_contracts.

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 second sentence gives usage context and examples ('find a guide ... or an organisation'), which implies when to use it. However, with siblings such as search_tenders and search_contracts, it does not state when to prefer those alternatives or when this broad site search is the right choice.

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