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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral value by disclosing the content corpus scope and, with no output schema present, that results carry ids consumable by `fetch`; it omits pagination/ranking behavior and the 25-item cap.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the content scope before the `type` and `fetch` guidance. The parenthetical list is dense but every item earns its place by defining the corpus; no filler or restatement of the title.

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 no output schema, the description covers what is searched, how to narrow it, and that ids feed `fetch`. It leaves result-shape detail (fields besides ids) and limit/pagination behavior unstated, which is a modest but real gap.

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 must compensate. Its content inventory implicitly maps onto the `type` enum values (wiki/docs/videos/courses) and it calls out `type` explicitly, but `limit` (1-25, default 8) and result-count behavior are unexplained beyond the raw schema constraints.

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) and a precisely scoped resource (PrintPal's how-to content), then enumerates the four corpora (wiki, docs, videos, courses). This clearly separates it from siblings like search_3d_models, search_build_guides, and the generic 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?

Gives implied usage ('Use `type` to narrow') and a downstream routing hint ('ids accepted by `fetch`'), which tells the agent what to do next. However it never states when to prefer this tool over the generic `search` or the other specialized search siblings, so selection guidance is left to inference.

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