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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load. It does disclose the return shape ('ranked results, each with its matching sentence') and the intended follow-up call, which is genuinely useful. It says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or result ranking criteria.

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?

Three compact sentences with zero filler: what is searched first, what comes back second, and the chaining instruction last. Everything is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description's account of the return format and the get_page chaining is the only guidance an agent gets, and it covers the essentials. Only the ambiguity versus the sibling 'search' tool and the absence of any permission/limit caveats keep it from being fully 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 100%: 'query' is documented and 'limit' spells out the default (10) and maximum (50). The description adds no syntax, operator, or scoping detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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) plus the precise resource scope: the Medius site, its docs/Guide pages and sections, the dashboard, firmware releases and device reports. That is well beyond a tautology. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling tool literally named 'search', so an agent still has to guess between the two.

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 gives a clear follow-up workflow (call get_page on a result's path for full Markdown), which implies search is the discovery step. But it never states when to use this instead of the sibling 'search', 'fetch', or 'list_pages', and offers no exclusions or prerequisites.

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