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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the exact corpus boundary (FAQ page only, not the whole site) and the omit-query default. It does not mention result ordering, relevance ranking, or what an empty result looks like.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the corpus definition before the query examples. The phrase about the Storage Units in Twin Falls page is slightly clunky but conveys a real limitation, so it 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?

With an output schema present, return format need not be explained. For a two-parameter, read-only search tool the description covers corpus, matching style, and no-query default — sufficient to call it correctly, with only cross-sibling routing left implicit.

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%, so both parameters are already documented, including the default/maximum for limit and the omit-to-get-first-five behavior. The description's example terms add some flavor about what kinds of words match (short keyword-style queries rather than sentences), but that is marginal beyond what the schema states.

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 names the specific corpus being searched — the FAQ page (explicitly 50 questions) plus the questions on the Storage Units in Twin Falls page — which is a concrete resource scope beyond the bare title. It implies the search verb through the title and the example-query list, but never states the verb directly and never names search_site as the differing alternative for site-wide lookups.

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 useful invocation guidance: sample search terms ("deposit", "RV", "lock", "24 hour access") and the behavior when the query is omitted. What is missing is any when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to siblings — an agent cannot tell from this text why it should pick search_faq over search_site or get_policies.

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