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

The description adds significant behavioral details beyond annotations: admins see draft/published with both languages; others see published in a single locale; results include canonical URL. Annotations already indicate safe, idempotent read, and description enriches that without contradiction.

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?

The description is three sentences with no wasted words. First sentence states purpose, second adds admin usage and dedup advice, third explains other accounts and locale. Information is front-loaded and each sentence 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?

Given the tool's complexity (search with role-based filtering, locale), the description covers major aspects. It references canonical URL hinting at output structure, and output schema likely details results. Could mention pagination or result count, but is sufficient for a 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?

The description explains that query searches by title, slug, summary, or content, and explains locale behavior (caller's language, ignored for admins). This adds value beyond the schema, which only describes locale. The limit parameter is not explained but has clear schema defaults/constraints.

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?

The description clearly states it searches explainers by specific fields (title, slug, summary, content) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_terminology by specifying the resource and searchable content.

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 explicitly instructs administrators to call this before creating a new explainer to avoid duplicates, and explains different behavior for other accounts. It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives.

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