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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: it explains the return shape (matching results with URL, source tag blog/pdp/guide, and the matched text) and states a content policy (GIS-safe, no diagnoses, no promised effects) that an agent needs in order to relay results responsibly.

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 the search scope, then the return shape, then the content policy; each sentence carries distinct information. Slightly dense run-on phrasing in the opening sentence, but no filler.

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 with no output schema, the description covers purpose, sources, return fields, and content constraints, which is nearly everything an agent needs. Minor gaps remain around result limits, ranking, or empty-result behavior.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents "pytanie" fully. The description reinforces that a natural-language phrase or question is expected via its examples, but adds no format, length, or language constraints beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Przeszukuje blog, tresci PDP i przewodniki gatunkow Aloha Fungi po frazie") and enumerates exactly which content corpora are searched. That scope implicitly separates it from the product-oriented siblings (search_products, szukaj_produktow, polec_produkty), though none of them is named directly.

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 three sample queries ("jak dawkowac reishi", "soplowka a pamiec", "przeciwwskazania chaga") show the kind of question this tool is for, so usage is implied fairly well. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over search_knowledge or the product-search siblings, and no exclusions.

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