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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no query syntax, no ranking or result-limit behavior, no indication of what a hit looks like or how errors surface.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and scope, and the domain list is compact rather than padded. No sentence is wasted.

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 read-only search with rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers what is searchable, which is the main thing an agent needs. Minor gaps remain around query formulation and result behavior, but nothing critical is missing.

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 single query parameter has 0% schema description coverage — only minLength 1 and maxLength 200 are stated. The description does not say whether the query is natural language or keywords, nor whether it matches across all listed domains or one, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (Search) and resource (FynePDF API and MCP documentation) and enumerates the covered domains: actions, parameters, pricing, files, jobs and errors. That verb+scope is enough to separate it from every sibling (which are all PDF file operations), though the description never explicitly says so.

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 — call this to look up API/action/parameter details — but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement. The ambiguity with the sibling list_actions (both relate to actions) is left unresolved, so the agent must infer which one answers a given question.

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