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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral details beyond annotations: ranking, accent-insensitive matching, and the exact fields and scope searched. It does not disclose rate limits or pagination nuances, but the output schema and annotations lower that burden.

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 with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads what the tool searches and the key behavioral modifiers, and the second sentence gives immediate usage direction and a follow-up pointer.

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 read-only search tool with full schema documentation, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what is searched, how results behave, when to use it, and what to do next. No critical operational information 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all three parameters, including the locale enum and default limit. The description mentions searched fields but adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, 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 states a specific verb and resource: ranked, accent-insensitive full-text search over every first-party essay. It also enumerates the indexed fields (titles, summaries, topics, bodies), making the tool's scope and behavior distinct from generic search or list tools.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool: when long-form analysis about a topic is needed. It also provides a clear follow-up step, `get_article`, for retrieving the complete essay. However, it does not explicitly contrast this with sibling alternatives like `search_all` or `list_articles`, so it stops short of full when-not-to-use guidance.

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