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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's added value is the return behavior: "Devolve os melhores resultados com a URL da página." It discloses what comes back and that results are ranked, though it omits the default limit of 12 / cap of 30 and any pagination notes.

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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded: scope first, then the routing instruction. Every clause earns its place and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description supplies what an agent needs: the indexed corpora, the returned artifacts (ranked results plus page URL), and the decision rule for choosing it over the get_* tools. The only omission is limit defaults, which is minor.

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 67%: query and locale are documented in the schema (including examples), but limit is not. The description does not add syntax, format, or range meaning beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline of 3 for partial coverage 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?

States a specific verb ("Busca por termo") and resource ("toda a biblioteca"), then enumerates exactly what is indexed: the 256 Odus, Orixás across three spelling traditions, Estudos, blog and glossary. This makes it immediately distinguishable from the entity-specific get_* siblings.

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?

Explicitly instructs "Use antes de get_odu / get_orixa / get_article quando não souber o slug" – naming the alternatives and the exact condition that routes the agent here. This is textbook when-to-use guidance.

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