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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the bar is lower. The description still adds real context beyond them by disclosing the return payload (stable ids, canonical URLs, types, languages, excerpts, total count, pagination cursor) and the browse-vs-query behavior. It stops short of mentioning auth, rate limits, or the language-fallback reporting that the schema documents, so it is not 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded: purpose first, what-it-returns second, routing and exclusions third. Every sentence carries distinct information and there is no restatement of the title or filler.

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?

Six optional parameters, no output schema, yet the description states the response shape (ids, URLs, types, languages, excerpts, total count, cursor) so the agent knows what comes back and how to paginate. Combined with the exclusions routing to get_content and generate_quiz, nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly is missing.

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 every one of the six parameters, including the type enum, limit bounds, cursor reuse rules and language fallback, is already fully documented in the schema. The description only echoes the omit-query-to-browse behavior, which the schema also states, and adds no syntax or format guidance of its own. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 ('the public MasterAI Now catalogue') and enumerates what is searchable: curriculum stages, answer-hub lessons, AI tool pages, browser simulations and Guides articles. This maps cleanly onto the sibling tools, so an agent can tell it apart from get_content, list_learning_stages or get_simulations without opening any 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?

Gives an explicit entry-point rule ('Use it first when you do not already know an id or slug'), an explicit browse mode ('omit the query to browse'), and two explicit exclusions with the correct alternative named for each ('call get_content with a returned id', 'use generate_quiz'). Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered, with alternatives routed by name.

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