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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value by scoping the corpus to public pages only and disclosing the returned fields (title, url, description, snippet), though it says nothing about ranking behavior, empty-result handling, or snippet length.

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 well-formed sentence with the corpus scope and return shape front-loaded. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant or padded.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, corpus, and returned fields, which is nearly everything needed. The remaining gap is the relationship to fetch_page and what happens when no matches are found.

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%, with both query and limit fully documented including bounds and default, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema states, 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?

Names a specific verb (Search) and resource (Youanai's public pages), then enumerates the corpus (products, pricing, industries, blog, release notes, legal) and the return shape. An agent can tell this is a ranked retrieval operation over a fixed public corpus, which is clearly distinct from fetching a single page.

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 only implied: an agent infers 'use this when you need to find pages by keyword.' There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over the sibling fetch_page (e.g., search first, then fetch the chosen URL), and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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