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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses the search scope, the fact that results are filtered, and the presence of a relevance score. This is sufficient for a simple read-only search tool, though it omits details like pagination or authorization requirements.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary function, and contains no redundant or unnecessary information. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and output.

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?

The tool is simple with a single parameter and no output schema. The description adequately covers the tool's behavior and return value. A missing note on pagination or sorting is a minor gap, but overall the description is complete for typical use.

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?

The schema provides 100% coverage with the query parameter description 'Search terms', so baseline is 3. The tool description adds meaning by explaining what the query is matched against (titles, descriptions, tags, bodies), which gives context beyond the schema's terse description.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('search'), resource ('articles'), and scope (titles, descriptions, tags, bodies). It also mentions the return of relevance scores, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_article (single retrieval) and list_articles (bulk listing).

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 usage for full-text search across article fields but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or compare with siblings. Context like 'use list_articles for browsing all articles' is absent.

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