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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds genuine behavioral context the annotations cannot convey: a hard cap of five sections, best-first ranking, the per-result fields (heading, document name, page URL, text), and the empty-result behavior. It loses a point only because an output schema exists, so the return-shape detail is partly redundant.

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, front-loaded with the verb and scope, then the return contract, then the sibling routing. Every clause carries information; nothing is padding.

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 tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies scope, result shape, empty behavior, and alternative-tool routing. Nothing an agent needs in order to call 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 description coverage is 100% and the single query parameter is already documented with length limits and examples (api key, refund, CPR). The description adds only 'by keyword', which restates the schema rather than extending it, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (Australia Wide First Aid's documentation) and enumerates the covered corpora — developer portal, agent guide, auth.md, llms.txt, pricing, corporate, about, privacy/terms, and the first aid library's article and glossary titles/summaries. It also explicitly names the sibling it is not (get_doc), so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: keyword lookup here, 'Use get_doc for a whole document.' That is a clear when-to-use-this-vs-alternative statement with the selecting condition (fragment lookup vs full document retrieval) spelled out.

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