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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description only needed to add context. It does: results are capped at 8 and include title, URL and snippet, which is genuinely useful operational detail about result volume and 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?

Two sentences with zero filler; the scope is front-loaded and the result-shape sentence follows immediately. Every clause carries information.

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 compensates by naming the returned fields and the 8-result cap, so an agent knows what to expect. It stops short of describing empty-result behavior or result ranking, a minor gap for a simple search tool.

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%, with both the query and lang parameters documented in-schema including language options and examples. The description adds no parameter-level detail 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 (keyword search) and resource (minairal.com content) and enumerates the corpora covered: system pages, guides, FAQ answers, sector/location pages, blog articles. This scope makes it readily separable from siblings like get_company_facts or list_locations without opening any 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?

The description implies the usage context (find site content by keyword) but never states when to prefer it over siblings such as get_company_facts or recommend_system, nor any exclusion. It is adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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