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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing that results are ranked and that each hit carries the page to cite, but it says nothing about grouping, pagination, empty-result behavior, or what ranking is based on — gaps that matter for a search tool with no output schema.

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 searchable scope and followed by the decision rule. The command-palette analogy is a small flourish that conveys index freshness and completeness rather than wasting space, though it could be trimmed without loss.

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 three-parameter read-only query tool whose annotations cover the safety profile, the description supplies the two things an agent most needs: what corpora are covered and what a result contains (the page to cite). The remaining omission — no output schema and only a passing hint at the grouped result shape — is the one notable gap.

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%: limit and locale are documented inline with defaults, while query has only length bounds and is self-evident. The description contributes nothing about how locale changes ranking, what 'per group' grouping means, or how limit interacts with the four corpora, so it neither compensates for the partial coverage nor subtracts from it. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 concrete behavior (ranked full-text matching) and enumerates the four corpora searched — datasets, mirrored series, insight articles, tracked projects — which clearly separates it from the single-resource getters and listers in the sibling set. It stops short of explicitly naming a contrasting sibling or stating the underlying verb, so it is clear but not maximally distinctive.

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?

'Use it when you do not know which page or dataset covers a subject' gives a clear triggering condition, and the implication is that when you do know the page, you should call the specific getter instead. The exclusion is implied rather than stated by name, so it falls just short of the top band.

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