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

Annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true) and closed scope (openWorldHint=false), and the description reinforces that scope by naming the guide corpus. It also discloses the return shape (titles, URLs, Markdown URLs, short descriptions), which is genuinely valuable because no output schema exists. It omits ranking/pagination behavior for the limit parameter.

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, front-loaded with the verb and corpus before the return-value clause; no filler. The long parenthetical topic list is the only bulk, and it does earn its place as query-vocabulary guidance for an LLM searcher.

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 simple three-parameter search tool with no output schema and no nested objects, the definition covers what is searched and what comes back. It stops short of explaining result ordering or how `limit` interacts with the `category` filter, which are the remaining 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 description coverage is 67%: `query` and `category` carry good examples, while `limit` has only bounds/default. The description's topic list implicitly documents the query vocabulary but adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already says, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 resource ("Stormap's practical guides") and enumerates the topical coverage, so an agent immediately knows what corpus is being searched. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling `get_guide`, which is the obvious alternative for retrieving a known guide.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of when not to use it, and no mention of the sibling `get_guide` (which presumably fetches a specific guide by id/URL). An agent must infer that this is the discovery path and `get_guide` the retrieval path purely from the names.

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