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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the searchable-content scope but says nothing about ranking, result limits, pagination, or match behavior that an agent would need to interpret results, so it only modestly exceeds the annotation baseline.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the searchable corpus is stated immediately after the verb.

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 and annotations covering the safety profile, the definition is nearly complete for a one-required-param read tool. Only minor gaps remain around result behavior and when to fall back to the slug-based siblings.

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% and the single query parameter is documented with concrete example phrases, so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about syntax, operators, or phrase matching beyond what is already structured.

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?

Specific verb ('Full-text search') plus an explicit enumeration of what is searchable (case studies, architecture articles, developer docs, platform capabilities). The 'search' action is clearly distinguished from the get_* siblings that retrieve known resources by slug.

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 broad scope implies 'use this for discovery when you don't have a slug', but the description never states when to prefer it over get_article_by_slug, get_articles, or get_services, nor any exclusion. Usage must be inferred.

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