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

Annotations already establish the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description only needs to add extra context. It does so by noting that results are published Help Center instructions with source URLs and that account or conversation data is out of scope, going beyond the annotation fields.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The core purpose and scope are front-loaded, and the exclusion of account/conversation access is a useful, non-redundant addition.

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 simple two-parameter read-only search tool, the description covers the essential points: what is searched, what is returned, and what is excluded. There is no output schema, but the description's mention of source URLs is enough to set expectations. Minor gaps like return ordering or language behavior are not critical here.

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 for both parameters. It implies that 'query' is a search phrase but never explicitly describes how it is matched, and it gives no guidance about the 'language' parameter beyond what the enum already makes obvious. The description does not bridge the schema coverage gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('Find') and a precise resource ('published MYOPL Help Center instructions'), and adds what is returned ('with source URLs'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools like search_myopl_website, which likely target the main website instead of the Help Center.

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 clear context for when this tool is appropriate: searching published Help Center instructions. It also states an exclusion ('No account or conversation access'), which helps an agent avoid using it for private data. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the scope is clear enough to route correctly.

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