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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds 'semantic-style' ranking and 'Canton-specific' scope, but says nothing about how results from four heterogeneous sources are merged, deduplicated, or ranked, nor about result volume beyond the schema's per-source limit.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: the source enumeration and aggregation scope come first, then the usage condition. Every clause earns its place and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 two-parameter search with no output schema, the description supplies the sources, the domain scope, and the trigger condition, which is enough to invoke it correctly. It is only slightly short on what a multi-source result set looks like, which matters when four sources can each contribute up to the limit.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters (query, limit) are documented inline including the default of 5 per source, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no syntax, format, or query-construction guidance beyond what the schema already states, which is the baseline case.

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) and enumerates the exact resource set (forum, mailing lists, blog, GitHub discussions), and explicitly scopes out docs/code. That differentiates it from get_doc/find_code_examples, though it never names the single-source siblings (search_mailing_list, search_github_issues) it aggregates over, so the 'one-call at once' framing carries the differentiation implicitly.

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 when you want to scan everything written by humans (not docs/code) for a topic' gives a clear trigger plus an explicit exclusion. It stops short of naming the alternative tools to prefer for a single source or for code/doc lookups, so the agent must infer the routing.

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