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

Annotations already certify read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral details by specifying the return value ('canonical URLs and concise excerpts') and the scope ('published public content'). However, it does not disclose other behaviors like result ordering, pagination, or no-result handling, which are relevant for a search tool.

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 two short sentences, both informative and free of fluff. It front-loads the action and resource, then provides the return format. Every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 two-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers the key elements: what is searched, the scope, and the return shape ('canonical URLs and concise excerpts'). It does not mention query syntax or pagination, but these are not essential for basic invocation. The presence of annotations further completes the safety context.

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 50%: only 'query' has a description, while 'limit' relies on its type, default, min, and max to convey meaning. The description does not add extra semantic detail about either parameter beyond restating the query purpose. This is adequate because the limit parameter is self-explanatory from its schema constraints, but the description does not compensate for the missing limit description.

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 specific verb ('Search') and a clear resource ('published public Filter Solutions technical posts and website pages'). It effectively conveys the tool's function, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_content or site_info. The purpose is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it for discovery tasks.

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 clearly indicates when to use this tool: when searching published public Filter Solutions content. It does not provide explicit exclusions or name alternatives, but the context is concrete and the intended use is obvious from the resource description. This meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' bar.

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