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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two useful traits: result ranking and the tenant-membership auth requirement. It omits whether this is purely read-only, pagination/cursor behavior, and any rate limits, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps.

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 zero filler; the core capability and result behavior are front-loaded, followed by the access constraint.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description covers what is searched, the result count behavior, and the access requirement. It stops short of describing result shape (ranked documents vs alerts) or whether results are cross-type merged, but is broadly complete.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters (including query semantics and the limit cap). The description only restates 'limit' and the tenant constraint, adding nothing beyond structured fields. 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 set ('sites, pages, and alerts') scoped to a tenant. This is enough for an agent to know it is the general discovery tool, though it never names or contrasts any sibling explicitly.

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?

Provides one prerequisite ('caller must be a member of the given tenant') but no when-to-use vs when-not guidance or alternatives (e.g. versus the crawl-specific getters). Usage is only implied by the tool's obviously generic name.

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