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

With readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false already declaring safety and scope, the description adds useful context beyond annotations: the searchable fields, bilingual query support, and the shape of results. It omits pagination/limit behavior, which is left to the schema.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what is searched, then language support, then result shape and follow-up. No filler or repetition of the title.

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, the description usefully names the return fields (titles, URLs, descriptions) and the next-step tool, covering the essentials for a 4-param search. It could say more about limit/result-count behavior to be fully complete.

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 coverage is 75%, so kind, language, and query are already documented in the schema. The description adds the language behavior ('Polish and English queries both work') but contributes nothing on kind or limit beyond the enum, so it stays at baseline.

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 (search) and resource (justidea.agency pages) plus the fields searched (titles, descriptions, section headings), which is concrete and distinguishable from siblings like get_page and list_services. An agent knows exactly what this tool retrieves without opening the schema.

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?

Clearly signals the follow-up path ('read a result with get_page'), routing the agent between search and retrieval. It does not state when not to use it versus list_services or send_inquiry, so it stops short of full explicit alternatives.

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