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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by stating supported query languages and the shape of results: ids, titles and page URLs. It omits pagination or result-limit behavior.

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 core purpose. The second sentence efficiently covers return values and the follow-up fetch workflow. No wasted text.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description gives enough: languages, result fields, and the id-to-fetch next step. The remaining gap is lack of differentiation from search_catalogue and no indication of result caps or ranking 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the single query parameter is already documented. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by saying the query may be in Hindi, Hinglish or English and targets the DharmikStudio catalogue. It does not add syntax or matching-mode detail.

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 and resource: search the DharmikStudio catalogue. It also names supported languages and return fields, so the agent knows what the tool is for. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling search_catalogue, which is a near-identical name.

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?

Gives clear context for using the tool and explicitly points to the next step: pass an id to fetch for full text. It does not explain when to prefer this over search_catalogue or when not to use it, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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