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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and meets it: it discloses the return content (URLs plus answers 'in our own words'), warns that answers are paraphrased, and defines the empty-result fallback to prevent hallucination. This is behavioral guidance an agent cannot get from 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?

Front-loads the purpose in the first clause, then the routing rule, then the answer-handling instructions. The topical enumeration is long but each item constrains the tool's scope usefully; no sentence is pure 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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain returns — and it does, describing URLs and FAQ answers. Combined with routing, quoting, and empty-result guidance, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool correctly.

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 with default and max) are already documented in the schema. The description's example questions reinforce the use case but add no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema states.

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 corpus it covers (service pages, city pages, guides, FAQ set), plus what it returns (real URLs and matching FAQ answers). It also distinguishes itself from a named sibling, get_services.

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 routing rule: 'Use this for ANY question get_services does not cover,' then lists concrete qualifying topics. It also prescribes downstream behavior (quote faq answers, cite URLs, say 'not published' on empty results), leaving nothing to inference.

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