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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the return shape (titles, summaries, askleafsight.com links) and that no sign-in is required — both are things the annotations cannot convey. It does not mention result limits or pagination, which is the only remaining behavioral gap.

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 action and resource, then usage, then return shape. The parenthetical example list is somewhat long but earns its place by teaching query granularity and disambiguating scope. No filler or restated annotation fields.

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?

With only two fully documented parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what it searches, when to use it, what comes back, and that no auth is needed. Return values are described inline precisely because no output schema exists.

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%, with both the free-text query and the language enum documented in the schema, including an example query string. The description adds no additional semantics about query syntax, matching behavior, or how language interacts with the query text, so the baseline of 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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("Search Leafsight's plant problem guides") and enumerates the covered domain — symptoms, pests, diseases, care mistakes — with concrete examples like root rot and powdery mildew. It implicitly separates itself from get_guide by scoping itself to "general questions about a plant symptom," but never names the sibling or contrasts the two retrieval paths explicitly.

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?

"Use for general questions about a plant symptom" gives a clear positive trigger condition, and the examples show the granularity of query expected. There is no guidance on when NOT to use it (e.g., when the user already has a specific guide, in which case get_guide would apply), so it stops short of an explicit routing rule.

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