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

No annotations are present, and the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as search type (fuzzy, exact), result characteristics, pagination, or side effects. For a tool with no annotations, the description should compensate but does not.

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?

The description is very concise (one sentence) but lacks structure such as separate sections for usage or examples. While front-loaded, it is under-specified and does not earn its place by providing sufficient detail.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (searching multiple content types) and the absence of output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not mention return values, filtering, or how results are presented, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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?

The input schema has one required parameter 'query' with no description (0% coverage). The tool description does not elaborate on the query parameter's format, examples, or constraints, leaving the agent without guidance on how to formulate queries.

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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Search' and the resources: CHP concepts, glossary, FAQs, and the capability catalog. It effectively communicates the scope of the tool, though it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools that cover individual content types.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this search tool versus the dedicated sibling tools (e.g., faq, define, explain). The agent is left to infer that search is a catch-all, but explicit usage conditions are missing.

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