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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond the schema: the search corpus spans essays and certain pages, results are ranked excerpts, and German queries perform best. It stops short of mentioning rate limits or result ordering specifics.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is searched, then what comes back, then the one non-obvious tip. No filler, no repetition of schema or annotation content.

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 two-parameter, read-only search tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the corpus scope, return fields, and a language caveat — near complete. The main omission is guidance on using this versus the retrieval siblings.

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% (query = 'search terms', limit = max results with default 5), so the schema carries parameter semantics. The description adds only the German-language tip for query phrasing, and says nothing about limit or why one would tune it, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (full-text search) and resource scope (all essays and pages, noting 'about' and 'context'), and the return shape (title, URL, snippet). This clearly separates it from siblings like get_essay and list_essays, which retrieve by identity rather than by query.

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 usage ('full-text search across all essays and pages') and adds a practical hint that German queries work best, but it never states when to prefer this over get_essay or list_essays, nor any exclusions. Usage is inferable but not guided.

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