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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and discloses that the operation is a read-only search, specifies the exact return fields (slug, title, URL, highlighted snippet), and notes ordering (best matches first). It also scopes the search to published pieces and lists which parts of the content are searched. It does not mention rate limits or error behavior, but for a simple search tool this is substantial.

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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose, then provides return details and a workflow pointer. It avoids repeating schema descriptions, making every clause valuable.

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 two-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers search scope, return fields, ordering, and the follow-up action. The schema handles search term semantics and limits. Minor gaps like behavior on zero results are non-essential, so the description is effectively complete 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 100%, so the schema already fully documents both 'query' and 'limit'. The description adds useful context about what corpus is searched, but it does not add parameter-level semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 uses the specific verb 'search' over a clearly defined resource ('every published piece') and enumerates the exact fields searched. It also distinguishes itself from sibling get_audit by noting that the slug should be used for full detail, so an agent can tell which tool does which job.

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 explicit workflow guidance: after searching, use the returned slug with get_audit for full detail. It provides clear context for when search_corpus applies (full-text search for published pieces) though it does not explicitly enumerate when not to use it or name alternative search tools.

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