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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying the output format (one-sentence answer and URL), which is beyond what the schema or annotations convey.

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 compact: two sentences that first state the search scope and then immediately state the return format. Every clause earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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, read-only search tool with no output schema, the description covers the resource, scope, and return value. It is slightly incomplete around edge behaviors like zero results or result limits, but annotations and schema already cover the core safety and parameter needs.

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 description coverage is 100%, so parameters are already fully documented. The description adds topic-domain examples that help agents craft a query, but it does not meaningfully extend the schema's parameter definitions, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search'), names the exact resource (Cambridge China Bridge's guides to importing from China to the UK), lists topical subdomains, and states the return value (each guide's one-sentence answer and URL). This clearly separates it from the sibling calculators and checkers.

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 description implies use for general guide lookups across import topics, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer search_guides over more specific siblings like find_duty_rate, find_uk_compliance, or estimate_landed_cost. Usage context is present but no exclusions or alternative routing are given.

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