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

Annotations already cover read-only and idempotent behavior, so the description adds meaningful context by describing searches as targeted toward 'canonical NFH documents' and explaining that the returned id is the key to retrieving full content. It also clarifies that search returns references, not full sources.

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 only two sentences of coherent, directly informative prose. It front-loads the central search action and then provides the essential follow-up step without any filler.

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 a single parameter, a rich annotation set, an output schema present, and the fetch workflow explicitly mentioned, the description gives enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It could be more explicit about the structure of search results, but this is not necessary for basic correct 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 already fully describes the single query parameter with 100% coverage. The description's 'Find canonical NFH documents by topic' does not add meaningful semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score is appropriate.

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's action and resource: 'Find canonical NFH documents by topic.' It distinguishes this tool from the sibling fetch tool by indicating search results are references, not complete documents.

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 gives a concrete workflow: pass a returned id to fetch the complete source. This implicitly advises using fetch for full document retrieval, though it does not explicitly discuss when not to use search or compare it to other sibling tools.

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