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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses the indexed content scope (multilingual, multi-type, city pages) and the return shape (titles, descriptions, URLs), which the annotations cannot convey.

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 compact sentences with zero filler. The scope statement comes first, the coverage detail second, and the hand-off to get_page last — appropriately front-loaded.

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 four-parameter, read-only search tool with no output schema, the description supplies what the structured fields cannot: the corpus boundary, the language/type landscape, and the return fields. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents query, lang, type and limit. The description lifts it slightly by clarifying that query may be phrased in any site language and that the corpus spans three languages plus city pages, which explains the semantics behind the lang and type enums.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource (search the public website of JustAutomate) and immediately scopes the corpus: services, products, industry offers, guides, blog posts, across pl/en/de plus German city pages. An agent can tell this apart from get_page or list_pages without opening any 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?

The description gives a clear usage context (searching public site content) and explicitly routes the follow-up step: 'read a result with get_page.' It does not, however, state when to prefer list_pages over search, nor any exclusion conditions, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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