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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds useful behavior beyond that: the return shape (titles, URLs, one-line summaries) and the ranking guarantee ('best match first'). It omits pagination/limit behavior and any rate-limit or coverage caveats.

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, no filler, with the scope front-loaded and the return contract immediately after. Every clause carries information an agent can act on.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully states the return fields and ordering, which is the main gap it needed to fill. It leaves the semantics of limit and the scope of the locale filter unexplained, which matters for a 3-param search tool.

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 67%; query and locale are documented in the schema, while limit has no description anywhere. The description adds no parameter guidance at all, so it neither compensates for the gap nor degrades the baseline.

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 resource types it covers (apps, blog articles, learning paths, pages), plus what is returned. It is clearly a cross-content discovery tool, distinguishable from the get_*/list_* siblings, though it never names those alternatives.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'search' suggests you reach for this when you don't know the exact item, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over list_apps or get_post, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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