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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns diagnostic fields and enforces a maximum of 30 results, which is useful. However, it does not mention potential side effects (though likely read-only), error conditions, authentication needs, or any other behavioral constraints.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the result limit is clearly stated. There is no redundant language; every phrase adds value.

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?

The tool has no annotations, no output schema, and minimal schema descriptions. The description provides the search function and return fields, but omits parameter details for 'view' and 'project_id', and gives no usage context relative to siblings. An agent may not know how to set these parameters correctly.

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 descriptions coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'query' is a substring for URL or title, but does not explain the 'view' parameter (enum auto/structural/ai) or the 'project_id' parameter. The list of diagnostic fields is not parameter-specific and does not clarify inputs.

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 a specific verb (search) and resource (pages), and further specifies the search mechanism (substring in URL or title) and the returned content (diagnostic fields). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_cluster_pages or get_audit_pages, which have different intents.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention conditions like 'use when you need to find pages by text' or name a more suitable sibling. The context implies search use, but it is not directly stated.

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