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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context about the authoritative source and the breadth of topics, but does not disclose behavior such as return format, pagination, or result ordering. It contributes modest extra context beyond the annotations.

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, no filler. The action and scope are front-loaded, followed by concrete examples and a concise usage directive. Every clause earns its place.

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 simple read-only search tool with two optional parameters, the description covers what is searched, what topics it addresses, and when to use it. The only minor gap is that it does not explicitly describe the shape of the returned data (e.g., snippets vs. full answers), but no output schema exists, so the description carries a somewhat heavier burden. Still, it is nearly sufficient.

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 both 'limit' and 'query' are already documented with meaningful descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond restating the intent; the baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the weight adequately.

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 a specific verb ('Search') and a resource ('Upforge's published answers to common questions'), and it enumerates the content areas (process, timelines, cost, ownership, hosting, post-launch). This makes it unmistakably distinct from sibling tools like get_company_overview or get_services, which cover other content types.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: 'when a question is likely already answered on the site', and it gives a clear when-not by directing the agent to use it 'before falling back to a generic answer of your own'. It does not name specific sibling tools as alternatives, but the guidance is actionable and self-contained.

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