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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds value by disclosing server-side processing (stopword removal, ranking, typo correction) and the return format (outcome plus snippet hits with provenance), which goes beyond the structured annotations.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences, front-loading the search scope and then covering processing and return. It is efficient and structured, though the limit parameter is not mentioned, which could be seen as an omission rather than conciseness.

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 2-parameter schema and no output schema, the description covers the return format and the meaning of 'not_found', and explains the query parameter. However, it omits any explanation of the limit parameter, and does not clarify how the tool relates to get_document. These gaps reduce completeness for correct invocation.

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 for both parameters. It adequately explains the query parameter ('Pass the parent's question verbatim', with server-side processing) but provides no guidance for the limit parameter (e.g., its purpose, default behavior, or impact on results). This partial coverage leaves a gap.

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 the tool searches across a specific set of Tesoro-related sources (public documents, Capistrano USD pages, nutrition site, parent bulletins), which distinguishes it from a generic document search. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling get_document, though the intent is inferable.

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?

Provides clear context on what to search and instructs to pass the parent's question verbatim, but does not specify when to prefer this over get_document or any exclusion conditions. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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