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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool returns (title, description, summary, URLs), which implies a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly confirm non-destructiveness or mention authentication, rate limits, or side effects.

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 consists of two efficient sentences. The first sentence states the core action and resource. The second lists return fields and example queries. No unnecessary words, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 has no output schema, the description adequately explains the return fields (title, one-line description, TL;DR summary, article URL, CTA URL). It also notes the library size (~70 problems). For a simple search tool with two parameters, this provides sufficient context for an AI agent to understand what to expect.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value for the 'query' parameter by advising 'in the owner's own words' and providing usage examples, but adds nothing for 'limit' beyond what the schema already provides. Overall, modest added meaning.

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 uses the specific verb 'Search' and identifies the resource as 'Dog Leadership Academy library of ~70 common dog behaviour problems'. It clearly distinguishes the tool's purpose from siblings like get_dog_problem_article (single article retrieval) and list_dog_problem_topics (topic listing) by focusing on semantic search over the library. The examples of queries further reinforce the tool's scope.

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 description explicitly states 'Use for questions like...' and provides five concrete example queries, giving clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or recommend alternatives among siblings.

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