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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return fields (slug, type, grade, summary), which is genuinely useful behavior context, but it does not state that the operation is read-only, how result ranking/pagination behaves, or that missing topics return empty results. Adequate but with gaps for an unannotated tool.

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 compact sentences, zero filler, and the corpus scope is front-loaded before the return shape and the sibling reroute. Every clause earns its place.

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 read-only search tool with no output schema, the description covers the corpus, the returned fields and the escalation path to get_training, which is enough to call it correctly. It stops short of describing ranking, result shape details, or behavior on no matches.

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%, with the type enum and limit bounds (default 10, max 25) already documented, so the baseline is 3. The description's topic examples loosely illustrate what the query and type parameters accept but add no format or matching semantics beyond the schema.

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+resource ('Search the evidence-graded training topics') and immediately scopes the corpus with concrete domain examples (variables, methods, exercises, weight-loss, myths). It also names the sibling get_training as the full-page alternative, so an agent can distinguish it from get_training 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?

The closing sentence 'Use get_training for the full page' gives an explicit alternative and the condition that selects it (summary vs full page). It lacks explicit when-not guidance (e.g., when to prefer search_supplements or list_guides instead), but the search/discover vs fetch split is clear.

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