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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds 'public' (implying no auth) and 'not personal tax advice' (a content limitation), which provides some context beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose behaviors like pagination, result format, or rate limits, but the bar is lowered due to existing 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?

The description is two short sentences with zero filler. It front-loads the core action and resource, then adds a relevant caveat. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the zero schema coverage and absent output schema, the description should explain what results look like and how to craft queries. It only says 'Search public RIFK preparation guides,' which is insufficient for a tool with two undocumented parameters. The absence of return-value information and parameter guidance leaves the agent under-informed.

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%, placing the full burden on the description. The description does not explain the meaning of 'query' or 'limit', nor how they interact. An agent cannot infer expected query syntax or the effect of limit beyond the schema's constraints. This is a significant gap.

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 public RIFK preparation guides.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_business_info (business info) and get_knowledge_article (single article retrieval). The added clarification 'General information, not personal tax advice' further scopes its purpose.

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 usage when searching RIFK guides, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the alternatives. No exclusions or conditions are provided, leaving the agent to infer when search_knowledge is preferred over get_knowledge_article. This is adequate but lacks formal guidance.

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