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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavior beyond that: it accepts English or Georgian and returns up to 5 results with summary and link, which tells the agent what to expect from the call.

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?

Front-loads the core use case ('Use for any everyday-life question...'), then the topic list, then the return format. The long topic enumeration is verbose but serves retrieval/relevance matching, so it largely earns its place.

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 output schema, the description responsibly explains the return (up to 5 guides with summary and link) and the accepted languages. Coverage of the query parameter's format is thin, but the essentials for calling the tool correctly are present.

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 50%: the lang enum is documented in the schema, but query is not. The description compensates by stating 'Accepts English or Georgian,' clarifying the lang dimension beyond the enum, and its topic list implies the query is natural-language text. Slightly above the baseline 3.

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 clear verb+resource ('search ... guides') and specifies the domain (everyday-life questions from Georgian speakers in the US) and result shape ('up to 5 kartvelians.com guides with summary and link'). An agent can distinguish it from the get/list siblings without opening the schema.

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 says 'Use for any everyday-life question from a Georgian speaker in the US' and enumerates concrete topics, giving strong positive-use guidance. It does not name the get_guide or list_guides siblings or state when-not-to-use, so it stops short of a 5.

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