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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: which fields are matched, that results are ranked best-first, and that each result carries type, relevance score and links. It does not cover pagination or result-count behavior, but the added matching/ranking details are substantive.

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?

A single dense paragraph that front-loads the resource scope, then matching behavior, then filters, then the sibling hand-off. All sentences carry information, though the opening inventory of content types is slightly list-heavy.

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 an output schema present, return-value details are not required, and the description still notes the shape (type, relevance score, links). Combined with full schema coverage and annotations, an agent has everything needed to call it 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds semantics the schema does not: tags require ALL given tags to match, category implies type entry, and an empty query plus a filter lists everything in that filter. These are non-obvious interaction rules that earn a bump above baseline.

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 (search) and resource (the Agentica index of agent-usable resources and long-form content), and enumerates what is searched over. It is clearly distinguishable from the get_* siblings, which it names explicitly.

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 routes the agent: use get_entry for type entry and get_content with type+id for long-form items when full details are needed. It also documents the edge case of an empty query with a filter, which is genuine 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.