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 usefully adds corpus size (121 answers) and that both keywords and full questions are accepted, but says nothing about result format, ranking, or the effect of limit.

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 count, input modes and topic list; the parenthetical topic enumeration is long but genuinely informative for query formulation and does not bury the core action.

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 should indicate what comes back (answer snippets, count, relevance) and how lang/limit behave; it covers corpus size only. Adequate to call the tool, but incomplete for a search tool with an undocumented language parameter and no return-value description.

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 only 33%: only query is documented in the schema. The description reinforces query semantics ('keywords or a full question') but adds nothing about lang (when/how it affects matching) or limit (result count, capped at 20), leaving real gaps beyond the schema.

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 (Search) and resource (121 short answers about Veliane), plus accepted input styles (keywords or a full question) and topic coverage. It is clearly distinguishable from the singular fact getters by being a broad corpus search, though it never names them.

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 only implied: a free-text/keyword search over an FAQ corpus vs. the specific getters (get_veliane_price, get_veliane_names, etc.). No explicit 'use this when you don't know which specific getter applies' or 'prefer get_veliane_price for exact prices' guidance, and listing price/safety topics arguably overlaps with siblings.

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