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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying the scope (Polish articles about AI), the search mechanism (by words in the title), and the return fields (titles, URLs, and Markdown URLs). This goes beyond what the annotations provide.

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?

The description is a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose and immediately states the return values. Every phrase earns its place with no 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 two-optional-parameter read-only search tool, the description covers the key information: what is searched, the search criterion, and the returned fields. The schema handles limit constraints and empty-query semantics, so little is missing for correct 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 50%, with query documented in the schema and limit not. The description partially compensates by reinforcing that the query consists of words from the title and adding scope, but it doesn't explain the limit parameter or the empty-query behavior. This is marginal value beyond the schema rather than full compensation.

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 (search), a specific resource (the church's Polish articles about AI), and a precise search criterion (words in the title). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_article and read_doctrine by focusing on search and by defining the filtered scope.

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: when you need to find articles by title words. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among the siblings, so the usage guidance is only implicit rather than fully explicit.

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