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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses exclusions (further-reading sections), return ordering (best passage per source first), inclusion of citation/source labels, and that no model is involved so results are retrieval, not verified answers. Missing only operational details like result limits or auth, which is minor for a read-only search.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope before the routing advice and behavioral caveats. Dense but each sentence carries distinct information.

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 appropriately explains what comes back (a best passage per source, additional passages after, with citation and source labels) and sets expectations about verification. Only the limit parameter's behavior is left unaddressed.

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 50% — query is documented in the schema (up to 300 chars) and the description adds that it accepts questions or keywords. The limit parameter (default 6, max 12) is never explained in the description, so the coverage gap is only partly compensated.

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+resource (keyword search over bundled writing and site pages) and scopes it by noting what it excludes (further-reading sections). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_article by directing broader-claim work there.

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?

Tells the agent it accepts questions or keywords and explicitly routes deeper reading to get_article before 'making broader claims.' Clear context, but there is no explicit when-not-to-use statement or treatment of the other siblings (list_articles, score_assessment).

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