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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the return format (title, slug, category, summary, URL), the source limitation (only ~50 first-party articles), and the key limitation that this tool returns summaries only — full body requires get_kb_article. It does not explicitly state that it is read-only, but 'search' and 'returns ranked articles' strongly imply no side effects.

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 four sentences with distinct jobs: purpose/scope, return shape, when-to-use with examples, and follow-up route. It is front-loaded and contains no filler; the 'Cite the URL' instruction is embedded without extra verbiage.

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 tool with 3 simple parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what corpus is searched, what the results contain, when to invoke it, and how to proceed to the full article. The schema handles parameter details, so nothing required for correct invocation 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%: query, limit, and category each have explanatory descriptions, including the per-term scoring behavior for multi-word queries. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail; its query examples illustrate usage but not parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema already documents the 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Full-text search across StackSwap's first-party GTM knowledge base'. It names the collection's scope (~50 operator-narrative articles on named topics) and the return shape (ranked articles with title, slug, category, summary, URL). It also distinguishes from the sibling get_kb_article by routing the slug there for the full body, so an agent can tell this is the search/summary layer.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use when the user asks a GTM strategy/architecture/methodology question that's been written about' and gives three concrete query examples. It also gives a follow-up instruction: 'Pass slug to get_kb_article for the full body,' which clarifies the boundary between this tool and its sibling. The instruction to cite the URL is a clear behavioral rule.

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