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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so safety is covered. The description adds return-behavior detail (best-matching pages with title, path, snippet) that is genuinely useful given there is no output schema, plus the two-step search-then-read pattern.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with scope and return format, ending with the actionable next step. No filler or restated title text.

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 compensates by naming the returned fields, and parameters are fully covered by the schema. Minor omissions remain: no mention of result-count limits or pagination implied by 'best matching pages'.

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%, and the schema already documents the query examples and the 'de'/'en' language values. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the 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 (full-text search) and a precisely bounded resource: all pages and blog posts of bitspire.ch. It also names the return shape (title, path, snippet), so an agent knows exactly what kind of result to expect without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear context for use (finding content on the site) and routes the agent to the correct follow-up tool ('read a result with get_page'). It does not disambiguate against get_site_overview, so the when-not case is left implicit rather than stated.

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