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

Annotations already declare this a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), yet the description adds real substance: localized keyword matching behavior, the pagination termination contract (next_offset/has_more), and a provenance caveat that results are dated snapshots. It does not describe result shape or ranking, which keeps it from a 5.

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 tight sentences with the action and scope front-loaded, followed by the browsing and pagination procedure, then the provenance caveat. Nothing is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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 4-param, read-only search with no output schema, the description covers the essential contract: what corpus, what scope, how to page, and how to hand off to read_knowledge_article. It leaves minor gaps around what a result record contains (ids, titles, snippets), though 'read an article by id' implies ids are returned.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden, and it does explain query semantics (keyword matching, omit to browse) and market (exactly one required market, localized). However, limit and offset are only referenced indirectly through the pagination instruction, with no mention of the 1-20 cap or the 1000 offset ceiling beyond what the schema enumerates.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Search published WebStartHub guides and FAQs') plus a hard scope constraint ('in one required market'). It also implicitly distinguishes itself from read_knowledge_article by framing search as the discovery step and article-reading as the follow-up.

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?

It gives explicit workflow guidance: omit query to browse, follow next_offset until has_more is false, then read an article by id. It also flags what the corpus is not ('not personal advice or a binding quote'), which functions as a soft usage exclusion. It stops short of naming when another sibling tool is the better choice.

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