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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false; the description reinforces the closed corpus ('across the whole site') and adds an agent-facing duty to cite returned pages, which is behavior not encoded anywhere in structured fields. It does not describe result ordering or pagination, but the safety profile is already covered by annotations.

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: the first defines scope and result groups, the second gives the routing rule and output duty. Front-loaded and free of repetition.

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 still signals that results are pages worth citing, and the schema fully documents the four inputs. Only a note on relevance ranking or result grouping would make it complete for an agent composing an answer.

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%, including examples for query and defaults for limit, lang, and types, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond implying broad free-text queries, which is the expected baseline at full coverage.

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?

States a specific verb (free-text search) and resource scope (whole site), then enumerates the five result groups returned. This clearly separates it from the sibling tools, which are all structured project/area/developer 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?

Gives an explicit routing rule: use it for questions the project tools do not answer directly, with concrete example topics (buying process, freehold, visas, mortgages, fees, market news). The agent can decide between this and list_projects/get_project_details without inference.

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