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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return shape ('matching pages with a text snippet'), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about search semantics (exact vs full-text, language, stemming), result limits, or whether the snippet is truncated.

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, zero filler, front-loaded with the search scope and the exclusion. 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?

The snippet-of-results note partly compensates for the absent output schema, but with no annotations and 0% parameter documentation, the definition leaves an agent without enough detail on query syntax or result count to invoke it confidently.

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% and neither parameter is explained. The description never clarifies what 'query' accepts (keywords, phrase, natural-language question) nor what 'limit' bounds, so the agent must guess at the most consequential input.

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 (search) over specific resources (blog articles, section/collection/service texts) and explicitly excludes products, naming the sibling that handles them. An agent can distinguish it from usilitel_products_search without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the product case to usilitel_products_search, which is a real when-not rule. However, it gives no guidance on the boundary with usilitel_article, usilitel_articles, or usilitel_page_text, which also return article/page content and are the most likely source of mis-selection.

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