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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: result shape (ranked passages) and coverage (the definition page, privacy notice, developer docs) – useful for an agent deciding what queries will hit. It doesn't mention rate limits, but that is minor.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the verb and scope; the second sentence delivers return format. No filler, no repetition of the title or annotations.

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 simple two-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essentials: what corpus is searched and the return format (ranked passages with URLs). The only mild gap is that it doesn't say a limit/count is accepted, though the schema covers that fully.

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%: both query (with min/max length and examples) and limit (range, default) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing parameter-specific beyond the notion of 'passages' matching the limit field, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (full-text search) and scope (every page on privatesuperintelligence.si), plus what it returns (ranked passages with page URLs). It never names a sibling such as read_page, so the distinction from fetching a known page is left implicit, which keeps it just below 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?

Usage is implied by 'full-text search across every page' – use it when you need to locate content without knowing the URL. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no named alternative (e.g., 'for a known page, use read_page'), so the routing guidance is only inferred.

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