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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral specifics: literal and case-insensitive matching, result includes an excerpt, and the tool only covers published documentation. It does not describe return structure beyond 'excerpt', but with annotations carrying the safety burden, this is acceptable and adds meaningful context.

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?

The description is three sentences long and front-loaded: the main purpose first, then usage guidance and alternative, then a limitation. No redundant phrases or filler. Every sentence earns its place and the structure is efficient.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it searches, what it returns (pages with excerpt), how to refine queries, and its scope/limitations. It doesn't mention result ordering or pagination, but these are not critical for an agent to call it correctly. The differentiation from siblings is clear, so the agent has enough to decide when to use it.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (query, limit, source) are already documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond the schema; it only hints at query usage ('prefer the exact terms') which is more usage guidance than parameter semantics. With full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description doesn't need to compensate.

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 states a clear verb ('Search'), the resource ('body text of Tailor Platform's public documentation'), and the outcome ('return matching pages with an excerpt'). It also differentiates from the sibling fetch_knowledge by noting that this is the entry point and that fetch_knowledge reads a full page, and it implies a distinction from list_knowledge. The purpose is unmistakable.

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?

It gives explicit guidance: 'Start here for most questions, then pass an id to fetch_knowledge to read a page in full' – this tells the agent exactly when to use this tool versus the sibling. It also provides search-strategy advice ('prefer the exact terms that would appear in the docs') and states an exclusion ('cannot see a user's own application data'). All usage context is explicit and actionable.

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