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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds substantial behaviour beyond that: the no-match fallback returns closest book passages, results are English-only, and unauthenticated use is rate-limited to 3 questions/day with a 15-minute lookup window counting as one. These are exactly the operational traits an agent cannot get from 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?

Purpose and fallback behaviour are front-loaded, and the rate-limit and scope sentences carry non-obvious operational information rather than filler. The prose is dense and slightly long, but every sentence adds a distinct fact an agent would otherwise lack.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so: matching answers with the backing book chapter and a link, or closest book passages when nothing matches. Combined with the topical scope, language, and auth/rate-limit context, nothing essential for correct invocation 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 description coverage is 100%, so both `query` and `limit` (default 3, max 10) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or semantic detail about either parameter, so the 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?

It states a specific verb and resource ('Search Loafy's library of answers to real questions from bakers'), names the author and grounding source, and describes the topical coverage (starters, fermentation, dough, flour, baking, storage). This clearly separates the answers library from raw book content, though it never explicitly names the sibling search_sourdough_book as the contrasting alternative.

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 rather than stated: the English-only note, the fallback-to-book-passages behaviour, and the mention that 'calculators, guides and the book's table of contents need no account' hint at where this tool stops and siblings begin. However, there is no explicit 'use this instead of search_sourdough_book when...' routing or exclusion, leaving the agent to infer the boundary against three closely related book tools.

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