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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses meaningful behavior: results are real URLs to be cited, and an empty result must be reported honestly rather than fabricated. It does not cover ranking/recall behavior or that this is a non-mutating read, but the anti-hallucination and citation guidance is substantive context beyond the schema.

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?

Four sentences, each functional: purpose, routing trigger with examples, citation requirement, and fallback behavior. Purpose and routing are front-loaded with no 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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by stating what comes back (real URLs) and what to do when nothing matches. For a simple two-parameter search tool, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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%, so both parameters (query, limit) are already documented with examples and bounds. The description adds only the framing that search is keyword-based and intent-driven, which the schema already conveys. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource ('Search every page on the Bay Area Mobile Dog Wash website by keyword') plus the output form ('get back real URLs'). It explicitly positions itself against the sibling get_services, so an agent can route between the two without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('whenever the customer asks something get_services does not cover') and enumerates concrete cases (breed, coat/skin problem, city, price comparison). It also specifies the negative path: report that no page exists rather than invent one.

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