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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value beyond that by disclosing the retrieval contract: up to 10 excerpts, links to full articles, last-revised dates, and the default 3-per-guide cap. Nothing here contradicts the annotations.

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?

A single sentence with the action and resource front-loaded, followed by return-shape and limit clauses that all carry information. It is dense and slightly long, but no clause is pure 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 no output schema present, the description carries the return-value burden and does so reasonably, explaining the excerpt count, accompanying links, revision dates, and per-guide cap. Pagination or behavior on zero results is not addressed, which is the one remaining gap.

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 both query and max_per_guide are fully documented in the schema itself, which sets the baseline at 3. The description's 'unless a different per-guide limit is supplied' gestures at max_per_guide but adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema already carries.

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?

States a specific verb (Searches) and resource (Aisle wedding planning guides) scoped by keywords, and even characterizes the return shape. This clearly distinguishes it from search_vendors and search_venues, which are the only other search tools among the siblings.

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 implied by 'by keywords' and the guides domain, so an agent can infer when to reach for it. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no routing against a sibling alternative (e.g. search_vendors vs this). Minimum viable guidance only.

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