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

The annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds the useful context that the result set is a fixed 'canonical' collection of public pages, but it does not describe response format or further behavioral details.

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 sentence with the core action and qualification front-loaded. The appended resource list is information-dense and directly useful, with 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 no-parameter, read-only resource listing, the description adequately conveys what the tool returns and which resources are included. It does not specify the exact response format, but the low complexity and strong annotations make that absence non-critical.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to explain; the baseline of 4 applies. The description's list of returned resources is relevant to output, not to parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and identifies a concrete resource category ('canonical public informational and policy resources') with an explicit list of examples. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_journal or search_catalog_education, which are search-oriented.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of its siblings, nor does it mention any alternatives or exclusions. The resource list implies a static-information use case, but the agent is left to infer the boundary with search_journal.

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