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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower; the description adds that queries accept Arabic or English and that results are titles plus canonical URLs, which is valuable given there is no output schema. It omits result count limits and pagination behavior.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource scope and ending with the return format. The Arabic/English note slightly duplicates the schema's own parameter description, but the example queries justify the space.

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 one-parameter read-only search, the description supplies the missing return-format information (titles and canonical URLs) in lieu of an output schema, and clarifies language support. Only result limits and pagination, if any, remain unspecified.

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% and there is a single parameter, so the schema already documents the query string and its 2-character minimum. The description's language note and example queries ('Stanley Bridge', 'كوم الدكة') add only marginal illustrative value beyond 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 (Search) and names the resource and its content coverage (photographs, documents, maps, articles, events). It is clearly distinguishable from the get_*/list_* siblings, which retrieve or enumerate rather than search.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer that this is the discovery entry point and get_article is the follow-up retrieval. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer search over list_recent_articles or list_upcoming_events, nor any exclusions.

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