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

Annotations already establish readOnly, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real behavior: a hard cap of 3 results and a relevance score per article. It leaves out what happens on zero matches or how matching works (keyword vs. semantic), which keeps it below 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?

Two sentences, no padding, with the core action stated first and the query-language caveat immediately after. Every clause adds information an agent would otherwise get wrong.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema that documents the return shape, this covers purpose, the critical query-language constraint, and the result cap. Only the no-results behavior is unaddressed, a minor gap at this complexity.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter meaning, and it delivers the single most important semantic: the query must be written in English even if the source content is Hindi or Hinglish. It does not mention the minLength of 3 or maxLength of 300, but those are already visible in the schema.

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?

"Search Zobrx's published help articles" gives a specific verb plus a clearly bounded resource, which inherently separates it from sibling search tools like search_catalog, search_orders, and search_inventory. An agent can pick it without opening the schema.

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?

The domain (help articles) implies when to reach for it, but the description never states when to prefer it over the generic 'search' or 'fetch' siblings, nor any exclusions. The English-language instruction is guidance on how to call it, not when.

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