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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing that results are ranked and what fields come back (titles, URLs, excerpts), which the schema does not state, though it omits that matchCount reports total hits independent 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?

Two sentences, zero waste: the primary behavior and return fields come first, with the follow-up hint last. Nothing redundant with the schema or annotations.

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 correctly takes on the burden of describing return values (ranked titles, URLs, excerpts) and the natural follow-up call. It is nearly complete; only result-count behavior (matchCount) is left solely to 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 100% – query matching, locale semantics, and limit/matchCount behavior are all documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter guidance beyond what is already structured, so 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?

States a specific verb (search), resource (Sandooq's public pages and blog articles), mechanism (keyword), and return shape (ranked titles, URLs, excerpts). It also names get_page as the follow-up, which separates search from retrieval among the siblings.

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?

"Follow a result with get_page to read it in full" gives an explicit next-step rule and implicitly scopes this tool to discovery rather than full-text reading. No explicit when-not condition or note about the closed corpus, but the routing intent is clear.

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