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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it is a search and returns ranked results, which aligns with the annotations. No contradictions or additional behavioral traits needed beyond what is stated.

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 focused sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with purpose and source, then output details, then filtering options. Extremely efficient.

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?

Given the four well-documented parameters and presence of output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, filtering, and the follow-up action. It also notes the developmental domain filter. No major gaps for a search tool.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of the query parameter as a natural-language question and suggesting the workflow of passing result IDs to 'fetch'. This goes beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool searches a child-development knowledge corpus, specifying the source (pinnacleblooms.org/ask), the types of questions covered, and that it returns ranked results with IDs. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like 'fetch' by noting that results can be passed to it for full answers.

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 explains filtering options and the workflow of using 'fetch' for detailed answers. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other sibling tools like 'browse' or 'compare' to guide when not to use search. Still, the provided context is clear enough for proper usage.

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