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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It does disclose the return behavior ('matching pages with a text snippet'), which is useful, but it does not mention ordering, limits, exact-match semantics, or whether the operation is read-only. This is moderate transparency for a simple search tool.

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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, then states the output format. Every word contributes to understanding the tool.

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 one-parameter search tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the core purpose and return value ('text snippet'). It is missing a direct comparison to 'list_pages,' but the low complexity means the description is largely sufficient.

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 schema provides only the parameter name 'query' with a minLength constraint and no description. The description compensates by clarifying the parameter means 'a keyword or phrase,' adding semantic meaning beyond the raw schema. It does not specify formatting or additional semantics, but for a single parameter this is reasonable.

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 specifies a clear action ('Search'), a distinct resource ('CliquePrize site content'), and the result ('returning matching pages with a text snippet'). It effectively distinguishes from the sibling tool 'list_pages' by emphasizing keyword/phrase-based search rather than enumeration.

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 description clearly implies when to use the tool: when you need to find content by keyword or phrase. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name 'list_pages' as an alternative for browsing all pages, so it falls short of a 5.

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