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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavioral context by noting the search is limited to 'published' articles and that the return value is 'summaries' rather than full content. Yet it does not disclose pagination, default limit behavior, or what happens with no query/filters.

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 two short sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and resource, then adds the return type. Every phrase earns its place.

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?

For a simple search tool with four optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate basics but leaves gaps: the 'limit' parameter is unexplained, there is no mention of result ordering or pagination, and no guidance on when to prefer this over the sibling get_hvac_article. It is serviceable but not fully complete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It successfully explains the meaning of query, category, and author as filter dimensions, but it does not mention the 'limit' parameter or explain how the parameters combine. This is partial compensation for the missing schema descriptions.

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 states a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('published HVAC insights articles'), and identifies the filtering dimensions (keyword, category, author). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_hvac_article, which presumably retrieves a single article rather than searching a set.

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 implies the tool is for exploratory search by returning summaries, which hints at a different use case than fetching full articles. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or conditions for when to use this tool over get_hvac_article or other siblings.

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