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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that only 'public' content is searched, which is a scope limitation. However, it does not state what the tool returns (e.g., snippets, relevance scores) or any further behavioral details like pagination or rate limits. For a search tool, the absence of output behavior is a notable gap.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the core action and resource. The parenthetical listing of topics is informative but slightly extends length. Overall, every part adds value, though it could be slightly more succinct by trimming examples.

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 relatively simple search tool with three parameters, the description adequately conveys scope and content coverage. However, without an output schema or annotations, it leaves the agent without details about the response format or any limitations (e.g., max results). It is sufficient for basic understanding but not fully comprehensive.

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 67% (query and source have descriptions, limit does not). The description aligns with those parameters by mentioning 'documentation and the blog' (source) and giving example queries. It does not add meaning beyond the schema, particularly for the 'limit' parameter, which remains undocumented. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action ('full-text search') and the resource ('public SukukFi writing'), and enumerates the two corpora (documentation and blog). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_contracts or get_vault_stats, which focus on specific data retrieval rather than free-form search.

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 implies when to use this tool: to search across documentation and blog content. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools (e.g., get_doc for retrieving a specific document). There is no exclusions guidance, so usage is only implied.

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