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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value by disclosing the return shape (id, title, page URL) and an important caveat that results are educational, not medical advice.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and scope, then return shape, then the disclaimer. Every sentence carries information; the topical enumeration is slightly long but directly aids query construction.

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 compensates by describing the returned fields, and annotations cover the safety profile. What remains unstated (pagination behavior, ranking, empty-result handling) is minor for a simple search tool with a small default limit.

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 `query`, `limit`, and `locale` are already fully documented in the schema. The description's topic list hints at useful query phrasing but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (Growo's articles and calculators), then enumerates the topical scope. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the read-oriented sibling `fetch` by noting that ids must be fetched separately.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent what to do after searching ('Each id can be read in full with fetch'), which routes to the right sibling. It does not, however, say when to prefer the many growth/percentile calculators over a search, leaving that boundary implicit.

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