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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those: it returns source excerpts and excludes medical advice and customer records. This is good value, though it does not mention rate limits, authentication, or result structure.

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 concise, front-loaded sentences. The first names the verb, resource, and scope; the second adds return-type and exclusion context. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 simple 3-parameter search tool with strong annotations, the description covers domain, language, return type, and exclusions. The main gap is the lack of result-structure details, but the statement 'Returns source excerpts' gives enough for an agent to reason about invocation.

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 0%, so the description carries the parameter-explanation burden. It clarifies the language scope ('Portuguese or English') and the domain, but it does not describe the limit parameter or query semantics beyond what the property names and defaults already imply. Adequate but incomplete.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Search public optical education in Portuguese or English,' and adds output type ('source excerpts'). It is clear and distinct from the calculation-focused siblings, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from get_optical_topic, so it misses the full sibling-clarity mark.

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 description implies when to use the tool: for public optical education content, and provides exclusions ('not medical advice or customer records'). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to prefer this over get_optical_topic or the calculation tools.

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