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

Annotations already state that this is read-only and closed-world, and the description adds useful domain scope plus the shape of matching results. It does not disclose ranking, pagination, or how limit affects results; with an output schema present, this is adequate but not rich.

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 front-loads the purpose and then compactly explains query style and filters. The parenthetical English translation is slightly redundant, but overall it is appropriately sized with no padding.

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 output schema covers return structure and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description does not need to explain those. It provides enough context to call search with query, kind, and slug correctly, though missing limit semantics and sibling routing keep it from being fully complete.

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 must carry parameter meaning. It explains slug, kind categories, and query style well, but it leaves limit undocumented and does not clarify the 'alle' default or expected slug format.

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?

It states a specific verb, resource, and return elements: 'Durchsucht die Inhalte von was-ist-mcp.ch' and returns matching passages with title, link, and snippet. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as get_page, list_pages, or fetch.

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?

It gives query phrasing guidance ('Fragen Sie in ganzen Sätzen, auf Deutsch') and explains how slug and kind narrow the search. However, it does not say when to use this tool instead of get_page, list_pages, or fetch, nor does it give exclusions.

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