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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description's burden is reduced. It adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by stating that only published items are searched and that the result contains excerpts plus canonical URLs rather than full bodies.

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 a single front-loaded sentence that states the action, scope, return shape, and the key alternative with zero wasted words. It earns every word.

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 search tool with schema-provided defaults and enums, the description covers what is searched and what is returned, and it names the complete-text alternative. It does not describe result pagination or the exact content-type mapping, but these are minor given the schema and annotations.

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 needed to compensate for the four parameters, but it does not explain query, kind, limit, or offset semantics. Its enumeration of content types partially overlaps the kind enum but fails to map values like 'page' or 'all', leaving meaningful ambiguity.

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 opens with the verb 'Search' and names a concrete resource set ('all published memos, biography, creations, specialties, products, demos and API guides'), so an agent immediately knows what the tool targets. It also states what it returns (excerpts and canonical URLs) and names read_content as the sibling for complete text, distinguishing it from the closest alternative.

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 phrase 'read_content returns complete text' gives an explicit alternative for when the agent needs full content rather than excerpts, which is useful selection guidance. It does not, however, explain when to prefer search_content over list_memos or search_memories, leaving some sibling-routing to inference.

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