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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld=false, so the safety profile is handled. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the retrieval mechanism (FTS5 + BM25) and the returned payload (canonical URLs, clean Markdown URLs, matching section headings, excerpts), which materially helps an agent interpret results.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what is searched and over what corpus, followed by return-shape details. Slightly dense with the parenthetical FTS5/BM25 and the topic list, but every clause carries information.

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 description compensates by describing the return fields, and all three parameters are fully specified in the schema. It does not mention result ordering beyond BM25, truncation, or behavior when nothing matches, which are minor remaining gaps for a read-only search tool.

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 limit, query, and section are already documented with ranges, defaults, and an enumerated section list. The description's topic enumeration loosely maps to the section filter but adds no new syntax or semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (full-text search over 420+ kirupa.com tutorials/articles) and enumerates the covered topic domains, which no sibling covers. An agent can immediately distinguish it from get_tutorial (fetch one), list_sections (enumerate sections), and find_related_links (link discovery).

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?

Usage is implied by 'using full-text search' and the query examples, so keyword/concept lookup is clearly the intended trigger. However, the description never names the alternatives (get_tutorial, list_sections, find_related_links) or states when not to use this tool, leaving routing to inference.

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