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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses important behavioral details: results are snippets/quotes with source URLs, and each result includes title, URL, date, and clinical review status. It accurately reflects a read-only search operation without contradicting the annotations.

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?

The description is compact, front-loaded with the tool's scope, followed by return-value details and usage examples. Every sentence contributes useful information, and the bilingual structure mirrors the tool's intended use.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description fully describes what the tool returns and what kinds of queries are appropriate. Combined with the rich input schema and annotations, this provides sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema already covers all parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantic guidance for the query parameter by specifying clinical keyword usage and providing examples in both languages. This adds value beyond the schema's generic 'keywords or short question' description.

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 clearly identifies a specific action ('Cerca'/'Search') and a well-defined resource: the entire Bonebenders corpus, enumerating content types from blog articles to fixed pages. It also states what is returned (title, URL, date, clinical review, most relevant passage), making the tool's function unambiguous and distinct from the more specialized sibling tools.

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 description provides clear usage context: search across a defined clinical corpus, with guidance to use clinical keywords in Italian or English and concrete examples. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, but the search-specific language and output format imply appropriate use cases.

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