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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful detail that output is pre-formatted citation bullets rather than raw results, but it does not explain what 'clean' means (deduplication, filtering?), how top_n interacts with per_page, or whether paging is possible.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no padding. It is efficient, though 'query context' is slightly vague where 'query string' would be sharper.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries responsibility for explaining the return value, and it only gestures at it ('clean source links and markdown citation bullets'). For a read-only retrieval tool that is mostly adequate, but the interaction between the two paging parameters and the exact return structure are 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 coverage is 100%, so both integer parameters are formally documented, and the description's 'query context' only echoes the schema's 'search phrase used to collect source links.' With the schema doing the work, baseline 3 applies, and notably the top_n vs per_page relationship is left unexplained in both places.

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 concrete verb and resource: returns source links plus markdown citation bullets for a query. The output shape (clean links, markdown bullets) is specific enough to distinguish it from siblings like search_content or get_page_content_with_schema, though it never names those alternatives.

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 gives no signal about when to call this instead of search_content, search_documents, or search_enriched_page_contexts, all of which overlap with the query-search pattern. An agent is left to infer the choice from tool names alone.

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