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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile needs no restatement. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses the shape of the result (best matching guides plus their ids) and a behavioral quirk of the search engine (Hebrew queries perform better), which is not visible in any structured field.

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 corpus, no filler. The long parenthetical topic list consumes most of the length but earns its place by defining the retrieval scope for an open-domain query. Slight density cost, no waste.

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 two-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers the corpus, the input language strategy, and the rough return shape (matching guides with ids). The one meaningful omission is not connecting those ids to get_rights_guide, which is exactly the handoff an agent needs after a search.

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 both parameters are already documented in-schema, including a Hebrew example query and the limit default/maximum. The description's only additional signal is the general Hebrew-query preference, which the schema's "preferably Hebrew" already conveys. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ("Search a Hebrew knowledge base") and scopes the corpus precisely with an enumerated list of domains (National Insurance, medical committees, tax exemption, work injury, conditions, forms). An agent can tell this is a topical search tool rather than a fetch-by-id tool. It stops short of naming the sibling get_rights_guide as the follow-up step, so sibling differentiation is only implied by "with their ids".

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?

"Query in Hebrew works best" is a useful operative hint, and "Returns the best matching guides with their ids" implies a search-then-fetch flow. But there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over estimate_benefits, and no statement that the returned ids should be passed to get_rights_guide. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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