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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does usefully disclose what is searched (title/description only, not full text) and what comes back (page URL plus markdown twin). It says nothing about result ordering, the effect of the limit parameter, or whether a missing match returns empty versus an error.

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 short sentences, search behavior front-loaded followed by the return shape, with no filler. Every clause carries information.

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?

The description sensibly covers the absent output schema by naming the return values, and the language scope is noted. However, with no annotations and an undocumented limit parameter, an agent lacks enough to call this reliably at scale or to choose it over get_page.

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 67%: query and locale are documented in the schema, and the description adds that search spans all three languages, reinforcing locale. The limit parameter is undocumented in both the schema and the description, so its meaning and default must be guessed.

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 (find) and resource (pages) and scopes the search index to title/description words, which is more precise than a generic 'search'. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_page or the list_* tools, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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 'find' versus the retrieval-oriented siblings like get_page and list_products, but the description never states when to search versus when to fetch a known page. 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.