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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: the exact fields returned (ids, summaries, duration, question count, topics, URL) and the caveat that the ru catalogue is small, which affects expected result volume.

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, front-loaded with purpose and scope, then filters and return payload. No filler, no repetition of structured fields.

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 summarises the return payload, and annotations cover the safety profile. It is nearly complete; only pagination behaviour and the relationship to get_test_info are left implicit.

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 schema already documents page, limit, query, topic, language, max_minutes and max_questions in detail. The description restates the filter set (keywords, topic, language, duration, questions) but adds no syntax, matching behaviour or defaults beyond what the schema provides; 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 states a specific verb (Search) and resource (Freudly catalogue of psychological self-assessment tests), and enumerates the topical scope (personality, anxiety, depression, burnout, relationships, IQ). It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling get_test_info, so an agent must infer the search-vs-detail distinction.

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: it is a discovery tool, so the natural follow-up is get_test_info, but the description never says when to use this versus the sibling or what to do with the returned ids. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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