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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's added value is in disclosing the result shape: pk, title, url, absolute image_url with its null case, category_code, meta_description and a relevance score. That is meaningful behavior beyond the annotations, though ranking/tie-breaking behavior and result caps context are not explained.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the operation and its filter, followed by the return contract. No redundant or filler wording.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating returned fields and the null-image case, and the schema fully documents all four inputs. Remaining gaps are matching semantics (AND/OR, stemming) and ranking behavior, which are minor for a bounded top-10 search.

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 the schema already defines query, limit, language and the category enum. The description only echoes the optional category filter and the notion of full-text matching, adding little syntax or format detail beyond the structured data.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Full-text search of website articles') plus the optional category filter, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not differentiate itself from close siblings such as search_article_sections or search_fts, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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?

'Full-text search' implies keyword-based lookup rather than the semantic or section-level siblings, but no alternative is named and no condition for preferring one over another is given. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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