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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds non-obvious behavioral context: German search terms are mapped to English vocabulary via a generated language layer, and results are 'ranked hits' with ids for downstream lookups. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 tightly written sentences: the search scope and targets, the bilingual language layer, and the return format. No filler, every sentence earns its place, and the most important information—what the tool searches—comes first.

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?

Without an output schema, the description explains the return value ('ranked hits with ids usable in get_endpoint / get_guide'), which is sufficient for an agent to know how to use the tool. It is missing nothing critical, though it could briefly note that limit controls result count; the schema already covers that, so no real gap remains.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value by clarifying the search corpus, the bilingual search behavior, and the output's usefulness for subsequent get_endpoint / get_guide calls. This is more informative than the schema's terse parameter descriptions.

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 clearly identifies the action ('Full-text search') and the exact resources searched ('API modules, endpoints (name, path, description) and the integration guides'). It also differentiates itself from the sibling retrieval tools by stating that returned ids are usable in get_endpoint / get_guide, making its role in the tool family unambiguous.

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 strong contextual guidance: search is across modules, endpoints, and guides, and results are designed to feed into get_endpoint / get_guide. It implies the tool is for discovery when an agent does not yet have a specific id, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or directly contrast with list_endpoints/list_modules.

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