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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: only *published* content is searched and results are confined to one language edition. It stops short of describing result shape (beyond 'titles/excerpts') or pagination behavior, which matters since there is no output schema.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb first and the resource list immediately after. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.

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 five-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the definition covers scope (published only), resource coverage, and locale semantics. Remaining gaps are pagination defaults/limits and the fact that q is mandatory, both of which an agent would otherwise have to infer from the schema.

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 only 20% (only locale is documented), so the description must carry weight. It usefully clarifies the locale dimension ('language edition... no fallback' is in the schema) and its resource enumeration maps onto the type enum values. However, q (required, 1-160 chars), page and pageSize (defaults, max 20) get no explanation in either place beyond obvious names.

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?

Specific verb ('Search') plus an enumerated set of resources (pages, functions, integrations, glossary entries, article titles/excerpts) scoped to a language edition. This clearly separates it from read_page (single-page retrieval) and the offers/plans siblings, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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 search framing implies when to reach for it, and the 'published'/'language edition' qualifiers hint at scope, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus read_page, nor any exclusion or prerequisite. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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