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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, and the description is consistent with all three. It adds genuinely useful context beyond the annotations: the index covers only pages already loaded and misses post-loading updates, which tells the agent results can be stale. Rate limits and result caps are not mentioned, so it is not a full 5.

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?

Front-loads what the tool does and where it searches, then moves to when to use it, then to failure handling. Every sentence carries information, and the empty-result protocol is worth its length. It is slightly dense in one paragraph but has no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is unnecessary, and the description still summarizes the response (excerpts plus URLs). Annotations carry the safety profile and the description covers index scope and failure handling. The one gap is that sibling disambiguation against search_pages is never addressed.

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?

Only one parameter (query) and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema itself supplying an example query. The description adds behavioral advice about reformulating queries but no syntax, format, or length guidance beyond what the schema already provides. 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?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (pages loaded from companydata.tsujigawa.com), plus the return shape (matching excerpts with URLs). Scope is precise about the corpus and explicitly excludes the open web. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling search_pages, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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 clear when-to-use guidance ("if asked about this site, use this first") and a concrete fallback protocol: rephrase the query with full names or synonyms, and if still empty, tell the user the site does not cover it rather than guessing. It stops short of naming alternatives like search_pages or fetch, so the sibling choice 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.