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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the query is not stored (privacy), results come from public fekrestan.com pages, and returns are Persian fa-IR RTL text — none of which is in 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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, with each sentence adding a distinct fact (fields, privacy, output language/source, exclusion). Only 'for parents and teachers' slightly overlaps with 'parent articles'; otherwise there is no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully characterizes the return values (fa-IR RTL text from public pages). It does not cover result ordering, pagination, or what happens at the limit boundary, but for a two-parameter read-only search it is nearly complete.

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 50%: the 'query' parameter already documents 'A few words, at most 80 characters', while 'limit' is undocumented in both places. The description compensates somewhat by clarifying what fields the query matches and that Persian or Latin words are accepted, but says nothing about the limit cap of 20 or result-count behavior.

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 published parent articles') and names the searched fields (title, description, tags), plus the language/script of the query. It also draws a content boundary ('No answers to in-app exercises'), which helps separate it from exam-prep siblings, though it never names an actual sibling tool.

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?

Usage is implied by the scope 'published parent articles... for parents and teachers', and the negative scope excludes in-app exercise answers. However, with 14 siblings including 'search' and 'get_article', the description never says when to pick this instead of those, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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