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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, not open world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value by disclosing the return shape (schema.org objects with url, name, site, score, description, schema_object) despite there being no output schema, though it says nothing about result count or pagination.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the capability and then enumerates the return fields. No filler, every clause carries information.

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 usefully compensates by naming the return format and fields, and annotations cover the safety profile. It is slightly thin on result volume/pagination and on how it compares to sibling search tools.

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 both parameters (query, language) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, which makes 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 and resource ('question answering over the site content') and adds the return format, so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. However it does not differentiate itself from the sibling search_knowledge_base, which plausibly overlaps in function.

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 'question answering' framing but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or routing to alternatives such as search_knowledge_base or get_document. The agent must infer selection from the tool's nature alone.

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