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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description contributes only the word 'published', implying unreleased/private content is excluded — a useful but thin addition, with no mention of ranking, matching behavior, or empty-result handling.

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?

A single sentence with the use condition front-loaded and zero filler. Every clause maps to a distinct content need the agent might have.

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?

With an output schema, full parameter documentation and rich annotations, the description only needs to route the agent, and it largely does. The one real gap is that it never positions itself against get_public_product_content, leaving the agent to guess which retriever fits.

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%, with the enum, min/max limit and query length all documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description's enumeration of content topics loosely corresponds to the `kind` enum values but omits 'claim' and adds nothing about matching or limit semantics.

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 the exact resource domain — published ComingUp product docs, integration/MCP setup, troubleshooting, FAQs, support guidance — so the agent knows what corpus is being searched. It never explicitly says this is a keyword search (the reader infers it from the name) and it does not distinguish itself from the sibling get_public_product_content, which retrieves similar content by another mechanism.

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 opens with an explicit trigger ('Use this when you need...') followed by five concrete content needs, which is clear positive guidance. There are no exclusions and no reference to the sibling retriever, so the agent is not told when to prefer this over get_public_product_content.

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