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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers safety. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it returns passages with exact attribution and avoids the intermediate page-fetching step. This tells an agent more about the tool's operation beyond the annotation.

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, front-loads the core behavior, and then adds a concise usage rationale. Every sentence contributes value with no redundancy.

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 description adequately explains what is returned (passages with URL and title) but does not address the optional 'category' parameter, result limits, or behavior when no passages match. Given there is no output schema, more detail on the return structure would make it complete.

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 only 33%, so the description should compensate, but it does not explain the 'category' parameter at all and gives only vague context for 'query' and 'limit'. The schema's 'limit' description ('Number of passages') is minimal, and 'query' is only implicitly tied to 'a question'.

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 states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('the specific passages that answer a question') and clarifies that each passage includes the source URL and title. The title ('not just links') and the contrast with browsing distinguish this tool from sibling search tools, even without naming them.

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 explicitly says to use this tool when intending to cite or summarise rather than browse, and explains the benefit: it skips fetching pages and hunting for the paragraph. It gives a clear use case but does not name alternative tools or state explicit when-not-to-use conditions.

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