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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses a hard result cap (max 30) and the shape of the returned diagnostic fields, but says nothing about auth/permissions, ordering of results, or whether the 30-result cap means truncation vs. pagination.

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?

A tight two-clause sentence: the search mechanism is front-loaded, followed by the returned fields and the result limit. No filler, though the parenthetical field list is slightly long.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description does cover output content and the 30-result limit. However it omits the semantics of the view enum and project scoping, which an agent needs to call it correctly across multi-tenant data.

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 only 25% (4 params). The description meaningfully clarifies the 'query' parameter (matches URL or title substrings), but the 'view' enum (auto/structural/ai) and 'project_id' are left entirely undocumented, and 'lang' is only covered by the schema itself.

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 (search pages) and the matching mechanism (substring in URL or title), and names the diagnostic fields returned. It is clearly distinct from sibling list tools like get_cluster_pages or get_audit_pages, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

The substring-match mechanism implies when the tool is useful, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the many page-listing siblings (get_cluster_pages, get_audit_pages, get_page_links). The agent must infer routing on its own.

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