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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it defines the indexed corpus as public pages only and discloses the return shape (page ids), which annotations cannot express. No result-count or ranking behavior is mentioned, keeping it just under a 5.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the corpus scope and the return contract both front-loaded. 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 one-parameter, read-only tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, this is sufficient: the agent knows the corpus, the input, and that output is page ids to hand to fetch. No output schema exists, so nothing further is strictly required.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('What to look for, in plain language'), so the schema already carries the meaning. The description adds no extra guidance on query phrasing, length limits, or matching behavior, 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 (search) plus the exact resource scope (every public page of the Bluebird Technologies site) and enumerates the sections covered. The closing clause 'Returns page ids for fetch' cleanly separates it from the fetch sibling, which consumes those ids.

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 'returns page ids for fetch' clause clearly implies the intended search-then-fetch workflow, giving an agent concrete usage context. It stops short of naming alternatives such as list_pages for enumerating everything or get_contact for contact details, so the when-not-to-use side is left to inference.

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