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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations: it states the search is deterministic and lexical, which informs the agent about result matching behavior. It also specifies 'published' content, indicating drafts or unpublished items are excluded. This goes beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, adding valuable operational detail.

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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the action ('Search') and key object types. Every word adds value, and it is appropriately concise for a simple search tool. No redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool has a simple schema with an output schema, so the description doesn't need to detail return values. It covers the key operational aspect (deterministic lexical retrieval) and scope (published content). It lacks explicit guidance on when to use this over siblings, but given the output schema and annotations, it is largely complete for a search tool.

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 for missing parameter documentation. It does not explain the query parameter's expected format or semantics beyond implying it's a text query, nor does it describe the limit parameter's effect (e.g., max results). The description provides almost no guidance on how to use the parameters, leaving the agent to infer from names and constraints.

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 published Spot pages, provider profiles, and comparisons with deterministic lexical retrieval. It names specific content types, making the purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like ask_spot or compare_providers, though the mention of 'deterministic lexical retrieval' hints at a keyword-based search as opposed to semantic Q&A.

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 provides some usage context by specifying it searches published content with deterministic lexical retrieval, implying it's for exact-keyword searches rather than natural language queries. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like ask_spot (likely Q&A) or compare_providers (comparison). No exclusions or conditions are given.

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