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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the return shape ('titles, canonical URLs and the best matching section') and that ranking picks a best section, but says nothing about ranking behavior, empty-result handling, or how the section snippet is chosen.

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, zero filler, front-loaded with the capability and closed with the return shape. Nothing repeats the schema or wastes tokens.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining returns and does so adequately. Read-only safety is covered by annotations and all four params by the schema, so the only real gap is behavior on no matches and how results are ordered.

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 parameter including the kind enum and limit bounds is already documented. The description's content-type list mirrors the kind enum and adds no new semantic detail about query syntax, topic id format, or the interaction between kind and topic, so baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb (full-text search) and enumerates the exact corpus searched, including the return shape (titles, canonical URLs, best matching section). It indirectly distinguishes itself from get_entry by framing results as summaries rather than full entries, though no sibling is named.

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 implied — an agent can infer this is the entry point for keyword queries and that get_entry fetches a single item — but the description never states when to prefer this over get_entry or how it relates to list_topics for the topic filter. No explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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