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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the lower bar applies. The description adds genuine context beyond them: the return shape ('citable document IDs for fetch') and the downstream workflow, which the annotations cannot convey. It does not mention pagination or result limits, keeping it out of the top score.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is searched, followed by what comes back and how to phrase input. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler or repetition.

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 no output schema, the description usefully sketches the return type (citable document IDs) and the fetch handoff, and it covers scope and query form for a 3-parameter read-only tool. Gaps remain around the limit parameter and any pagination or result-count behavior, so it is strong but not fully self-sufficient.

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 only 33% — only 'language' is documented in the schema, and the description adds nothing about it. The description does add real meaning to 'query' (product terms or a concise question), partially compensating. The 'limit' parameter and its 1-10 range are explained nowhere, so this is adequate but incomplete.

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 content scope: public products, technical documents, material selection, and contact information. It also clarifies the outcome ('Returns citable document IDs') and the handoff to fetch, which helps separate it from a plain list. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from overlapping siblings like find_material, get_contact, or get_product, leaving some ambiguity about when this beats those.

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?

Provides concrete query guidance ('Use product terms or a concise user question') and a scope exclusion ('no web-wide search'), which tells the agent what input shape works and what the tool will not do. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when a sibling tool would be preferable, so it is useful context rather than full routing guidance.

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