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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly describes what the tool does (searches all guidance, returns ranked answer units and associated metadata) and what the output contains, including the scope of 'evidence-led guidance for UK women in midlife'. It does not discuss limitations, rate limits, or failure modes, but for a read-only search tool this is a reasonable level of disclosure.

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 a single dense sentence that front-loads the trigger condition, then lists the return contents in a structured way. It could be tightened slightly, but every clause adds useful information and there is no 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?

With 2 well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough detail for an agent to invoke the tool correctly and interpret the response: what it searches, what it returns, and which topic/recommendation data comes back. It does not mention pagination or edge cases, but maxResults covers result limiting and the output composition is fully specified.

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%: both 'question' and 'maxResults' already carry descriptive text. The description mainly reinforces the tool's behaviour rather than adding new parameter meaning, so a 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 opens with a specific action ('Call this first'), identifies the exact resource ('all of HerStack's evidence-led guidance'), and enumerates the concrete outputs (answer units, URLs, topic, named recommendations with claims). This clearly distinguishes it as the entry-point search tool from the more specific sibling tools.

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?

Explicitly says when to call it: when a user describes their situation or asks in their own words, with a concrete example. It does not state when NOT to use it or name alternative siblings, but the 'first' positioning and open-ended input make the intended context clear.

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