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

Annotations already mark the operation readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context beyond that: returned images are 'inspirativni prikazi, ne dokaz izvedbe' (not proof of execution) and 'Bez cijene prije konfiguracije' (no price before configuration), which manages expectations about results.

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-load the purpose and then add two high-value caveats. No redundant phrasing or restatement of the tool name.

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 read-only search tool, the description plus annotations cover the core action, key filters, and two important behavioral caveats (image reliability and pricing). It omits explicit mention of the kind filter and pagination behavior, but those are visible in the schema with sensible defaults, so the gap is minor.

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 0%, so the description must carry the semantic load. It maps 'naziv' and 'atmosfera' to the query concept, and explicitly names 'kategorija' and 'prostorija' matching the category and room fields, but it does not mention kind, limit, or offset. The uncovered parameters are reasonably self-explanatory from the schema, so the description partially compensates.

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?

Description opens with the verb 'Pretraži' (search) and the resource 'originalne motive', and lists the searchable dimensions (name, atmosphere, category, room). This makes it immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like get_motif (single retrieval) and search_knowledge (knowledge articles).

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 the tool is for finding motifs by free-text/atmosphere and filters, but it never states when to prefer it over get_motif or search_knowledge, nor any exclusion criteria. An agent can infer usage from the verb but receives no explicit routing guidance.

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