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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only; cite the URL.' It also adds useful behavioral context by revealing what the agent receives (title, URL, snippet) and the citation expectation, which goes beyond what the annotations alone provide.

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 two dense sentences with no filler. It front-loads the purpose and scope, then immediately gives output shape and a usage note. Every sentence earns its place.

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 supplies the essential return shape (title, URL, snippet). Combined with the annotations covering the read-only safety profile and the schema covering parameters, the agent has enough information 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the input schema already documents query, lang, and limit with clear constraints. The description adds no real parameter-level meaning beyond noting English and Arabic, which the schema also mentions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Semantic search over GCC Domestic's published guides, blog posts and country pages.' It also enumerates the covered topics and explicitly states the return fields (title, URL, snippet), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling entity-search tools like search_agencies and search_workers.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: queries about visas, procedures, salaries, contracts, refunds, and worker rights over GCC Domestic's published content. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, but the scope is concrete enough to route the right kinds of questions here.

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