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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the corpus breadth (every public page), the granularity of results (sections, not pages), inclusion of the page URL, and language-dependent search behavior. It omits ranking/snippet details but is adequate for a read-only search.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with scope, then usage examples, then the follow-up action. No filler, and the return-value clause is embedded where it is needed rather than as a separate paragraph.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description still states what comes back (best-matching sections with page URL), which the agent needs to decide whether to follow up with get_ibda_page. With fully documented parameters and read-only annotations, nothing required to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining observable consequences of the language parameter: 'Arabic queries search the Arabic pages', which tells the agent something the enum alone does not. It says nothing extra about limit, which the schema already documents fully.

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 (search) and a precisely scoped resource: the text of every public page of www.ibda.co, with parents enumerated (services, expertise, projects, FAQs, about) plus the return shape (best-matching sections with page URL). This is clearly distinguishable from sibling get_ibda_page, which retrieves a full section rather than searching.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance with two concrete example questions and prescribes the follow-up path ('Follow up with get_ibda_page for the full section'), which routes the agent between search and full-page retrieval. It does not state when-not to use it (e.g., when get_ibda_overview would suffice), so it stops short of full alternative coverage.

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