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 still adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: results are excerpts (not full documents) and each includes a link to the full article, which is valuable given there is no output schema. It does not contradict any annotation.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the return shape. Every clause earns its place and nothing is padded or redundant.

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 single-parameter search with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description supplies what the agent needs: what corpus is searched and what comes back. Minor gaps remain around result limits/pagination and whether an empty query is valid, but nothing critical for invocation is missing.

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?

There is a single optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including inline examples of query strings, so the schema carries the parameter burden entirely. The description only reiterates 'by keywords' without adding format, matching, or empty-query semantics. 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?

The description gives a specific verb (Searches), a specific resource (Aisle wedding planning guides), and the nature of the result (relevant excerpts with links to full articles), so it is not a tautology of the name. It implicitly separates itself from siblings like search_vendors/search_venues by naming a different corpus, but it never explicitly contrasts them.

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: the phrase 'by keywords' tells the agent this is a keyword lookup over guide content, but there is no explicit statement of when to reach for this tool over search_vendors, search_venues, or the get_* guides. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative routing are provided.

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