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

With no annotations, the description discloses the core behavior: a read-only keyword search returning titles, URLs, and excerpts for citation. It does not mention authentication, rate limits, or result limits, but the behavior is clearly non-destructive and low-risk.

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, front-loaded with the verb 'Search', and no extraneous words. Every part is necessary and useful.

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 search tool with 1 parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and what it returns. It could mention pagination or result limits, but that is not critical for usability.

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% and the parameter 'query' is described as 'Keywords to search guide titles, excerpts and tags'. The description's 'by keyword' adds no new semantic value, 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 explicitly states the tool searches 'Simply Estate's estate-planning guides' by keyword, listing specific topics (wills, IHT, LPAs, trusts, probate) and details the output (titles, URLs, excerpts). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_faqs or lookup_glossary.

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 usage for searching guides with keywords but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_faqs or lookup_glossary. There is no explicit guidance on when-not-to-use or context for selection.

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