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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful return-shape context ('titles, summaries and URLs'), which matters because there is no output schema, but it says nothing about result ranking, pagination, or empty-result behavior.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler: the first front-loads the domain and content scope, the second covers the return shape. Nothing repeats the title or name verbatim.

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 correctly compensates by naming the returned fields, and the annotations carry the safety semantics. The remaining gap is routing guidance against the closely related siblings define_property_term and list_realyield_calculators.

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% and each of the three parameters (query, type enum, limit) is already documented in the schema, including an example query and the omit-to-search-everything behavior. The description adds no format or syntax guidance beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb ('Searches') plus resource ('realyield.co.uk') and an enumerated content scope (calculators, articles, glossary terms, templates) with a clear topical domain. It reads as clearly different in kind from the calculate_* siblings, but it does not acknowledge the overlapping siblings list_realyield_calculators and define_property_term, which cover a subset of the same content.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer 'use this to find content' but the description never says when to prefer it over define_property_term for a glossary lookup or list_realyield_calculators for a calculator listing. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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