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

The annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), and the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: results are capped at five, each hit carries title/summary/category/link, and the full article body is deliberately not returned. That last point is exactly the kind of boundary an agent needs in order to escalate to a follow-up tool.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with what is searched and backed immediately by the return contract and its limitation. Nothing is redundant with the title or the schema, and the closing clause about article text is well placed.

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 an output schema, full annotation coverage and 100% schema descriptions, the description only needs to supply scope and boundaries — which it does, including the five-result cap and the absence of article text. Minor gaps remain: no empty-result behavior and no pointer to which sibling retrieves the full article.

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 100%, so baseline is 3; the description does add meaning by tying results to the visitor's current language, which explains why locale matters and how titles/links are localized. It still leaves the query/locale interplay (e.g. does a locale override translate keyword matching?) to the schema, and the description's 'visitor's current language' is slightly looser than the schema's 'defaults to the server setting'.

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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource (searches PlanElec help-center guides) and enumerates the covered topics — getting started, automatic planning, exports, AREI self-check, floor plan import, symbols and circuits — which makes the content domain unambiguous. It stops short of naming a sibling, so an agent must infer on its own how this differs from search_regelwerk or get_regelwerk_article.

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?

Use is only implied: it is evidently the tool for help-center/how-to questions, and the topic list hints at its scope. There is no explicit when-to-use clause, no statement about when to prefer search_regelwerk or get_regelwerk_article, and no note on what to do when nothing matches.

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