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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is carried by metadata. The description adds behavioral context beyond that: it returns up to ten results in {id, title, url} shape and instructs passing an id to `fetch` for the full record, which helps the agent predict behavior. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three sentences plus an example, with the purpose statement front-loaded, the return contract second, and routing guidance third. Every sentence carries distinct information; there is no filler or redundancy.

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 generic search tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers query semantics, result count and shape, the fetch hand-off, and the preferred alternatives. Minor details like empty-result behavior or sort order are absent but not essential for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It defines the parameter as a 'free-text query' that searches across all listed content types and gives a realistic example. This conveys the semantic of free-form natural language input, which the bare schema (string, min 2, max 300) does not.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Search everything A-du publishes with one free-text query' and enumerates the content types covered. It also differentiates itself from siblings by labeling itself the generic entry point and naming the more specific tools, so an agent can tell it apart without inspecting other schemas.

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?

It explicitly says when to use this tool: 'generic entry point for hosts that only support search and fetch' and when not to: 'Hosts that can call specific tools should prefer search_rentals, search_plans, get_adu_rules and ask_adu'. This is direct, unambiguous routing guidance with named alternatives.

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