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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context: it searches only pages loaded from the site, excludes updates after loading, and instructs on fallback behavior. This goes beyond the annotations, though it does not cover aspects like rate limits or result pagination.

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 front-loaded with its purpose and then proceeds through scope and fallback guidance. Each sentence has a clear role, and there is no redundant filler, though it is slightly lengthy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter), rich annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers scope, usage, and failure handling. The main gap is that it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools such as search_pages.

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 schema itself describes the query parameter with an example. The description does not add syntax, format, or other meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 (search) and resource (pages loaded from logue-vintage.com), and notes that results include excerpts and URLs. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like search_pages, so it falls short of a 5.

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 gives clear context: 'if asked about logue-vintage.com, use this first,' and describes the scope limitation (only loaded pages, not the entire internet). It also provides fallback instructions (rephrase, then say not on site). However, it does not name alternative tools or explicitly say when not to use this tool versus siblings.

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