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

With readOnlyHint already present, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it searches a full-text export and returns excerpts with source URLs. This tells the agent what to expect in the response and clarifies the search scope. It does not contradict the annotation and adds value beyond it.

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 two sentences, front-loads the call-to-action and purpose, and includes concrete examples of valid queries. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition or 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 single-parameter read-only search tool with no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it explains what the tool does, what kind of input is expected, and what the return format looks like. It is slightly incomplete in not addressing potential limits like result count or when sibling tools may be more appropriate, but these are minor gaps.

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 0%, but the description compensates by indicating that the query parameter should be a natural-language question about FrontDesko, with examples of relevant topics. The schema only defines it as a string with length limits, so the description adds meaning about how to phrase the query.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Call this to answer any question about FrontDesko' and 'Searches the site's full-text export'. It conveys that this is a documentation search tool. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like calculate_ota_commission_savings or recommend_software, but the title and content make the purpose evident.

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 gives clear when-to-use context by saying 'Call this to answer any question about FrontDesko' and lists example categories (features, setup, security, integrations, OTA costs). It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or how it compares to sibling tools, so it lacks exclusions, but the usage context is still clear.

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