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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured facts: the query is not stored (privacy), results are Persian fa-IR RTL text from public fekrestan.com pages, and the audience is parents and teachers. It does not cover result volume or ranking, but that is a minor omission given annotation coverage.

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 scope statement is front-loaded and each of the four sentences carries distinct information with no filler. Minor weakness: two consecutive sentences begin with 'Returns' (ids vs. Persian text), which briefly reads as if there are two different return types rather than ids pointing at Persian content.

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, annotation-covered, no-output-schema tool, the description supplies what an agent actually needs: what is searched, what comes back, and what to do with it next. Missing only secondary details such as approximate result count or pagination 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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('A few words, at most 80 characters'), so the schema already carries the semantics and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no further guidance on query phrasing, language of the query string, or how matching works.

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 enumerates the exact resource scope: public pages, parent articles, «روش حل» pages, subject and station pages. It also declares the return shape (ids/URLs to pass to fetch), so an agent knows this is a two-step retrieval pipeline. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling search_articles, which is the one remaining ambiguity.

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 workflow context ('Returns ids (URLs) to pass to fetch') and an explicit exclusion ('No answers to in-app exercises'). The exclusion functions as a when-not rule. It stops short of naming an alternative tool for the excluded case or for article-specific searches, which is why it is a 4 rather than a 5.

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