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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds only the scope of content searched, and says nothing about result ordering, pagination behavior, or empty-result handling.

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 filler, correctly sized for a two-parameter read tool. Nothing redundant is included.

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 simple idempotent read tool with a fully described two-parameter schema and complete annotations, the essentials are present. The gaps are the sibling-search ambiguity and the absence of any indication of what kinds of results come back, which matters since there is no output schema.

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% (query with min/max length, per_page with bounds and default), so the schema does the heavy lifting and baseline 3 applies. The description adds no meaning about query matching semantics or how per_page interacts with result sets.

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) plus the resource classes it covers (public pages, posts, insights, case studies), which is more informative than the bare name. However, it draws no distinction from sibling search tools such as search_documents, search_enriched_page_contexts, or search_media_assets, so an agent cannot tell which search surface to pick from the description alone.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the three sibling search tools, nor any statement of preconditions or exclusions. Usage can only be inferred from the loosely enumerated content types.

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