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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the OR-style matching and relevance ranking, the corpus breadth, the language constraint, and the id-to-get_document handoff. It does not discuss empty-result behavior or result counting, keeping it at 4.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and corpus, then terse operational facts in short clauses. A few clauses (lang is nl or en, query max 100 chars, limit 1-10) duplicate the schema and could be cut without loss.

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?

Given an output schema exists, the description need not explain return shapes; it instead supplies the parts the schema cannot: relevance ranking, corpus scope, query composition, and the follow-up call to get_document. Nothing required to invoke it 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 earns one more by disclosing that any word may match and that more matched words rank higher, which directly affects how the agent should compose 'query'. The lang/type/limit sentences largely restate enum values and bounds already in the schema.

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 and resource ('Ranked full-text search over every page, solution, sector page, case, integration and article') plus the exact domain, aiagentcycle.com. This differentiates it cleanly from the enumeration siblings (list_documents, list_cases) and the fetch siblings (get_document) without needing to name them.

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?

Explains matching behavior ('Any word may match; documents matching more words rank higher'), which implies when this tool is appropriate versus listing. It also routes the agent forward by noting 'Each hit has an id for get_document'. No explicit when-not guidance or named alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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