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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and openWorldHint, so 'Read-only' is redundant. However, the description adds genuine value beyond annotations by enumerating the returned fields (title, excerpt, canonical HTML URL, language, author, publication date, Markdown URL) in the absence of an output schema, and by disclosing the content-exclusion filters (hidden, draft, future, noindex pilot).

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?

Short, front-loaded sentences; the core action and return payload come first, followed by scoping caveats. Minimal waste, though 'Read-only' duplicates the readOnlyHint annotation and could be dropped.

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 return-field enumeration usefully compensates, and the exclusion rules are valuable. But the input side is thin for a 3-parameter search tool — nothing about result ordering, matching semantics, or the limit cap — so an agent still lacks enough to call it optimally.

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 0% and the description never explains limit, query, or language — the 'language' mention refers to a returned field, not the filter parameter. With three undocumented parameters, the description should compensate but does not, leaving match behavior (e.g. substring vs full-text, ranking, default limit of 5/max 10) entirely unstated.

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 and resource ('Search published public blog guides') and immediately scopes it against the sibling get_article by noting it 'Does not accept a URL.' An agent can distinguish it from get_article, but no sibling is named explicitly, so the differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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?

'Omits hidden, draft, future, and the Traditional Chinese noindex pilot' describes result scoping, not when to choose this tool over alternatives. The 'Does not accept a URL' line hints that get_article handles URL/slug lookups, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or named alternative.

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