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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility, and it discloses key behaviors: it searches both published pages and, conditionally, internal knowledge bases, and returns short snippets with links. It does not mention authorization requirements or rate limits, but for a read/search tool the core behavior is clearly communicated.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every clause adds value: scope, conditional access, return format, and an explicit alternative. No wasted words.

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 search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides a strong sense of what it returns (snippets with links), what it searches, and when to prefer another tool. It lacks some detail like error behavior or domain/language specifics, but overall it is reasonably complete.

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 coverage is only 50%; domain and language parameters lack descriptions in the schema. The description does not explain these parameters (or the limit parameter's behavior beyond the schema) and only implies domain through 'location's own'. It adds little semantic value over the schema and fails to compensate for the undocumented parameters.

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 tool searches a location's policies, FAQs, and info pages, with an optional internal knowledge base. It distinguishes itself by noting the return format (snippets with links) and explicitly contrasts with get_store_info for structured numbers.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use it for policy/help questions instead of guessing' and directly names an alternative ('use get_store_info when you need structured numbers'). This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use direction relative to siblings.

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