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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it is a hybrid search, returns passages with page URLs, and directs the agent to fetch for full pages. It does not describe pagination or limit behavior, but that is a minor gap against the annotation coverage.

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 two compact sentences with no wasted text. It front-loads the core purpose and follows immediately with the return shape and next-step routing.

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?

The description is largely complete for a two-parameter search tool: it explains the search method, the return shape, and the follow-up use of fetch. It omits minor operational details such as the limit behavior and the exact result id format, but those are either schema-covered or low-value for tool selection.

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%, so both the query and limit parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is the correct baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb and search method (hybrid keyword + semantic search) over a clearly scoped resource (every page of dadaville.ch). It also distinguishes the follow-up path by naming fetch for full pages, so an agent can tell what this tool does relative to the sibling fetch tool.

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 gives a follow-up guideline — use fetch with a result id for the full page — but it does not explicitly say when to use search versus list_pages, get_page, or other siblings. Usage is implied by the search scope, but there are no explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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