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 value beyond them by disclosing the return shape ('titles, descriptions and URLs') and the public/unauthenticated access model, which the annotations alone do not 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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded: capability and scope first, follow-up action second. The regional/vertical elaboration is compact and serves selection rather than padding.

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 supplies the essential return shape and the get_page handoff, and the schema covers all four parameters. Minor gaps remain — result ranking/relevance behavior and whether limit is the only paging control — but nothing blocks a correct call.

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% with per-parameter descriptions and enums, so the schema carries the semantics. The description's 'in Polish, English and German' and the enumerated content kinds loosely mirror the lang/type enums but add no syntax or matching-behavior detail beyond it, making 3 the appropriate 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+resource ('Search the public website of JustAutomate') and scopes it precisely: which site, which regions, which content kinds, which languages. It also distinguishes itself from the read-side sibling by naming get_page as the follow-up step, so an agent can separate search from read without opening either 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?

Gives clear context (public site search) and an explicit next-step alternative — 'read a result with get_page' — which routes the agent correctly after results come back. It does not, however, contrast with list_pages or get_workshop_offer, so the agent must infer when browsing/enumeration is preferable to keyword search.

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