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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description doesn't need to cover safety. It adds meaningful context: the tool searches 'professionally authored Australian homebuyer guidance' and explicitly does not assess an actual property, which sets expectations for what the tool can and cannot do beyond what annotations say.

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 three sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action, provides a practical topic list, and ends with a critical exclusion. Every sentence earns its place.

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 search tool with 7 parameters and annotations, the description adequately defines scope and boundaries. It omits any mention of return format or result behavior, but since there is no output schema, some agents might benefit from knowing what the search returns (e.g., matching guidance documents). Overall it is sufficient for tool selection and 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?

The schema covers 71% of parameters with descriptions, and the description adds 'natural-language question' and topic guidance, which reinforces the query parameter's intent. However, it does not clarify parameters lacking schema descriptions (limit, cluster), and the listed topics do not map tightly to the structured properties.

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 ('Search') and resource ('professionally authored Australian homebuyer guidance') with clear scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_guide and list_guides by emphasizing natural-language querying and explicitly noting it does not assess an actual property.

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 clearly tells when to use this tool ('Use this for general property, inspection, disclosure, apartment, condition, maintenance, era and buying-process questions') and provides a when-not-to-use by saying it does not assess an actual property. However, it does not name alternative tools for property assessment or other use cases.

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