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

The description frames this as a search that returns proverb content, which contradicts annotations declaring destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. For a search operation, those annotations are inconsistent with the described behavior, so the agent cannot reliably infer the tool's side effects.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the return contents. It is appropriately sized and contains no unnecessary wording.

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?

The description covers search facets and the returned proverb components, which is useful because there is no output schema. However, it omits result limits, matching behavior, and how search results are structured, and it does not resolve the conflicting destructive annotations.

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 both parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description restates the search facets but adds no syntax, matching behavior, or usage constraints beyond what the schema provides.

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 and resource: searching Igbo proverbs by theme, life situation, or keyword. It is clearly distinct from a random-proverb tool, though it does not explicitly name siblings like get_random_proverb or search_cultural_archive.

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 implies when to use the tool by listing search facets such as theme and keyword, but it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It also does not route the agent toward alternatives such as get_random_proverb or search_cultural_archive.

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