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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: scope is limited to already-loaded pages, excludes the open internet and post-load updates, and prescribes a specific fallback behavior when nothing is found.

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?

Purpose and scope are front-loaded in the first sentences, followed by usage and fallback guidance. It is a fairly dense block with some repetition of the 'not found' theme, but every sentence carries actionable instruction rather than 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 values need not be explained, and the description adequately covers scope, activation, and failure handling. The remaining gap is the unresolved overlap with the sibling 'search_pages', which the description never addresses.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'query' parameter is documented with an example, so the baseline is 3. The description adds query-construction guidance beyond the schema (rephrase with full names or synonyms when a first attempt fails), which enriches how the parameter should be used.

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 and resource: search loaded pages from esprit-delasse.com by keyword and return matching excerpts with URLs. The scope constraint (only loaded pages) is explicit. However, it never distinguishes itself from the very similar sibling 'search_pages', so an agent cannot confidently choose between the two from the description alone.

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 activation context ('if asked about Esprit Delasse, use this first') plus failure handling (rephrase, use full names or synonyms, read candidate pages, and refuse to guess). It provides strong when-to-use guidance but never names alternative tools like search_pages or fetch, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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