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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds useful scope detail ('public' content only) and states what the results contain. It does not say whether results are ranked, truncated, or how snippets are sized, which is the remaining gap.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool searches and what it returns, then the follow-up action. No wasted words.

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 read-only search with no output schema, describing the returned fields (slugs, titles, URLs, snippet) covers the essential unknown. Ordering and result-limit behavior are the only things an agent might still want.

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 67%, so query and section are already documented in the schema. The description only implicitly echoes the section values by listing 'documentation, blog and product overview', and says nothing about the limit parameter's effect on the response.

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 and resource ('Full-text search over the public frosh.org documentation, blog and product overview') and explicitly distinguishes itself from read_page by naming the full-text follow-up. An agent can tell search from read without opening either schema.

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 follow-up guidance ('Use read_page with a slug to get the full text'), which establishes the search-then-read workflow. However, it never addresses when to use this versus list_pages, so one sibling relationship is left to inference.

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