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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it returns best-matching passages with URLs intended for quoting and citation, which tells the agent the output shape and usage mode.

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 tight sentences, zero filler, front-loaded with what is searched and immediately followed by what comes back. Every clause earns its place.

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 linked-output tool with no output schema, the description does cover the return value. However, with four semantically adjacent siblings and an undocumented limit parameter, it leaves routing and one parameter under-specified for an agent choosing between this and get_faq/get_roadmap.

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?

The description mentions no parameters at all. Schema coverage is only 50% (query documented, limit not), so the description fails to compensate for the undocumented limit parameter — its range and default are only in the schema. No syntax or guidance on query phrasing beyond the schema example.

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 a precisely scoped resource (everything getbureau.dev says about Bureau), enumerating the content types covered. It implicitly separates itself from get_faq/get_roadmap by aggregating all of them, but never names those siblings 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?

The phrase 'search everything' implies this is the broad-search entry point versus the narrower get_faq/get_roadmap sibling tools, but that contrast is left to inference. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement is given.

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