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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating that results are ranked matches with URLs, which goes beyond 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?

Two tightly written sentences. The content scope is front-loaded and the return behavior is stated immediately after, with no wasted text.

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 two-parameter search tool with rich annotations, the description covers purpose, content coverage, and return format. It is only slightly incomplete because it does not mention the limit parameter or how result ranking works.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It implies that 'query' is a search string over the listed domains but says nothing about the 'limit' parameter, result caps, or query constraints such as maxLength.

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 ('Search') and enumerates the resources covered (services, regulations, Vietnamese articles) along with topic domains. It is clearly a search tool, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like list_articles, list_services, or get_article.

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 the verb 'Search' and the content scope, so an agent can infer this is the right tool for keyword discovery. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over list_articles, get_article, or get_ghg_regulations.

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