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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and explicitly states the tool is read-only and that results are editorial pages with primary sources and canonical URL. It does not mention pagination, result limits, or authentication, but for a read-only search tool it discloses the key behavioral traits.

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 front-loaded with the core action and scope, then adds filtering and result details in a compact way. Every sentence adds useful information without repetition.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers purpose, filtering, read-only behavior, and the nature of returned results. Minor gaps like pagination behavior or result count limits are not addressed, but the critical context for calling the tool is present.

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 the schema already fully documents each parameter. The description reinforces the filtering dimensions and adds domain examples for the tiers, but does not add syntax or format details beyond the schema.

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) and clearly identifies the resource (VettedHome content index of UK home-services pages), including the three main content tiers. It is detailed enough that an agent can understand exactly what this tool searches without ambiguity.

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?

It clearly says the tool supports filtering by free-text query, tier, or sub-group, giving practical usage context. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, but there are no sibling tools to distinguish from.

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