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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and closed-world, so the description only needs to add context — and it does, by disclosing the return shape (ids, titles, URLs, snippets) and the snippet-then-fetch workflow. It adds no permission or rate-limit caveats, which is a minor remaining gap.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. The content scope comes first and the return/workflow contract second, which is the right front-loading for a search tool.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so fully: result fields and the id-to-fetch path are spelled out. Combined with a fully documented two-parameter schema, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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%: query examples and the 1-20 limit bound are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameter behavior or syntax beyond what the schema provides, 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 an explicit resource scope: the MERA Robotics profile, services, robots, evidence and knowledge-base articles. The enumeration of covered content and languages lets an agent distinguish it from the list_* enumerators without opening their schemas.

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 follow-up step: 'pass an id to fetch for the full text', naming the fetch sibling and the condition that selects it. It does not state when to prefer this over list_robots or list_services, so usage is clear but not fully exclusive.

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