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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the read-only nature of the operation, the exact return shape (question, short answer, canonical URL), and the default behavior when query is omitted. No output schema exists, so this return-format disclosure is genuinely valuable. It omits auth/permission needs and any rate limits, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying a distinct payload: what it searches, when to call it, what it returns, and how to control results. The usage trigger is front-loaded immediately after the purpose statement, with zero 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?

For a no-annotation, no-output-schema search tool with fully documented params, the description covers purpose, trigger, return shape, and pagination semantics. An agent has enough to call it correctly; only permission/auth context, typically irrelevant for a public FAQ read, is 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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema itself. The description's "Omit query to list the highest-scored FAQs" and "Use offset to page through the full bank" largely restate the schema text rather than adding new syntax or format meaning. Baseline 3 applies.

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) over a specific resource (every public KYMA369 FAQ answer) and even names the corpus URL. It is immediately distinguishable from search_content and search_frequencies, which cover different corpora.

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?

"Use before answering PEMF, Rife, Lakhovsky, Solfeggio, or product questions" gives an explicit trigger condition for invoking the tool. It stops short of naming when NOT to use it or pointing at a sibling alternative (e.g. search_content for non-FAQ material), so it is clear context without exclusions.

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