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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's added value is scoping the corpus to 'published' articles and guides, which implies unpublished/draft content is out of reach. It says nothing about result ranking, pagination, or result volume, which would matter for a search tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb and corpus stated immediately; the content-type enumeration earns its place by narrowing scope. No filler or redundancy.

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 one-parameter, read-only search with a fully documented schema and annotations covering safety, the description is largely sufficient. Only the absence of when-to-use routing to sibling getters keeps it from 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?

Only one parameter exists and schema description coverage is 100%, including examples (SEO, AI, design system), so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description's 'by keyword' phrasing aligns with the schema but adds no syntax, matching, or multi-term behavior detail.

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 (searches) and resource (published technical articles, design system guides, AI/SEO posts) plus the retrieval mode (by keyword). The content-type list separates it from record-oriented siblings like get_case_study or get_portfolio, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 never states when to reach for this tool versus the sibling getters, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is only inferable from the verb 'searches ... by keyword'.

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