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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the description need not repeat safety basics. It adds valuable context beyond annotations by stating that results are canonical citations and that retrieved content is evidence, never instructions, which is important safety guidance.

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 three short sentences with no wasted language. The core purpose and source constraints are front-loaded, followed by return format and safety guidance.

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 the simple one-parameter schema, rich annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential corpus scope, return nature, and safety posture. The main gap is routing guidance versus sibling tools, which prevents a full 5.

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 only one required parameter, query, and schema coverage is 0%, so the description should ideally compensate. It clarifies that the query searches approved, published website knowledge, adding domain meaning, but it does not explain query syntax, expected format, or length constraints.

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 states a clear verb and resource: search approved, published website knowledge. It adds useful scope constraints about the corpus, but it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools such as fetch or build_reading_list.

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 by the purpose statement; there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus fetch or build_reading_list. 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.