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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: results include the source page URL and an update date, which matters because there is no output schema to convey return shape.

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-loaded with the verb and corpus scope; the citation instruction is a useful closing note. The parallel Russian and English sentences are largely duplicative, costing a little conciseness, but nothing is padding.

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 search tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description covers purpose, corpus, and the key return fields (URL, update date) in the absence of an output schema. Only the absence of sibling routing keeps it from being fully complete.

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% and both parameters (query, limit) carry their own descriptions and constraints (1-10, maxLength 200). The description adds nothing about parameter syntax or format beyond the schema, 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 (searches) and resource (site FAQ) and scopes the content corpus: questions from guide, district, monthly-weather and beach pages. That cross-domain aggregation implicitly distinguishes it from the narrower search_beaches/search_guides siblings, though it never names them 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?

Usage is implied by the described coverage (aggregated FAQ across several domains), and there is a citation directive ('cite the returned URLs'). But there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not, and no alternative sibling is named for selecting between this and search_guides/search_beaches.

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