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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them by noting the results are short summaries rather than full records — important given there is no output schema — and by flagging that content exists in both English and Spanish.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the scope and searchable fields front-loaded before the follow-up action. Every clause carries information an agent needs to select and chain the tool.

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?

For a three-parameter read-only search with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers scope, match fields, language, result brevity, and the next step. Minor gaps remain: it does not say what fields a short result contains or how to page beyond the limit, but neither is essential to call it correctly.

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, but the description earns more by explaining what the query actually matches against (title, author, tags) and that both English and Spanish terms work — semantics the schema's example alone does not establish. It says nothing extra about limit or visitor_name, which the schema already documents well.

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 resource (the whole collection) plus the searchable fields — title, author, tags — which no sibling name conveys. It also distinguishes itself from get_piece by framing search as the lookup step and get_piece as the drill-down, though it does not contrast itself with recommend_piece or piece_of_the_day.

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 a clear workflow: search here, then open a hit with get_piece, which tells the agent when this tool is the right entry point. It stops short of explicit exclusions (e.g. when to prefer recommend_piece or random_style instead), so it is clear context without full routing guidance.

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