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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and non-destructive, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: empty-query default, a 100-item cap, and an explicit prompt-injection warning that retrieved text is data rather than instructions. It does not describe result ordering or truncation behavior beyond the cap.

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 English portion is front-loaded and waste-free, but the full Dutch translation repeats the entire content verbatim, roughly doubling the length without adding information for most agents. The result is still short, but the duplication is the largest inefficiency in the definition.

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 three-parameter, all-optional read tool with no output schema, the definition covers search-vs-list behavior and the result cap, which is what an agent needs to call it correctly. The main remaining gap is the absence of guidance on which sibling tool to prefer for adjacent content types.

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%, so all three parameters (type, query, store) are already documented with defaults and semantics. The description only restates the empty-query behavior that the 'query' schema field already states, adding no new meaning such as matching rules or whether 'store' affects the result set.

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 ('Search or list') and resource ('CMS pages and blog posts'), which is clearer than the title alone. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'gnv_knowledge' or 'gnv_catalog_search', so an agent must still infer the boundary between knowledge content and catalog content.

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?

'Without a query the list is returned, at most 100' gives a usable rule for choosing list-mode versus search-mode. However, no alternative tool is named and there is no statement about when NOT to use this tool versus gnv_knowledge or gnv_catalog_search, leaving sibling routing to inference.

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