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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavior beyond that: it enumerates the return payload (titles, URLs, Markdown URLs, short descriptions), which matters since no output schema exists. It does not mention result limits or pagination behavior.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what is searched and what comes back, then the handoff to get_guide. No filler or restated name/title.

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 compensates by listing return fields, and the read-only annotation plus the get_guide handoff cover the rest. Minor gaps remain around result limiting and category usage, but nothing blocks a correct invocation.

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%, so the schema already documents query and category with examples; the description's topic list loosely overlaps with the category filter but adds no syntax or semantics for limit or category. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does most of the parameter work.

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) plus the resource (Stormap's practical guides on building with AI agents) and enumerates the topical scope. It also names the sibling get_guide for reading a result, so an agent can distinguish it from get_guide 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?

"Use get_guide to read one" explicitly routes the agent to the follow-up alternative and implies search is for discovery. There is no explicit statement of when not to use it or of prerequisites, so it stops short of a full 5.

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