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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that omitting the query returns a list capped at 100 items and warns that returned text is data rather than instructions, but it does not describe permissions, pagination beyond the cap, or scope behavior.

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 front-loaded and compact, with the core search/list behavior stated first. The Dutch translation is redundant for English readers but does not materially obscure 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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is not complete enough for confident invocation. It covers the query/list behavior and a size cap, but leaves three of four parameters and the return structure largely unexplained.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for all four parameters. It clarifies only query semantics by saying that omitting query returns a list, while agentId, type, and store remain undocumented in both schema and description.

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 states a specific verb/resource pair and scopes it to CMS pages and blog posts, which distinguishes it from catalog search. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as gnv_knowledge or gnv_catalog_search, so it falls short of a 5.

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 explains the key usage distinction between providing a query and omitting one, which is helpful. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus gnv_knowledge or other search siblings.

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