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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explains the visibility difference between administrator and non-administrator tokens, the locale parameter's behavior, and that results include a canonical URL. This is useful supplementary detail to the readOnly and idempotent hints provided by annotations.

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 long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds meaningful information. It is tight and free of redundancy, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 output schema exists and annotations are present, the description covers all necessary aspects: search scope, role-based behavior, locale handling, canonical URL, and a usage recommendation for duplicate avoidance. It is fully sufficient for the tool's complexity.

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 clarifies the 'query' parameter by listing the searchable fields (title, slug, summary, content), which is not in the schema. It also explains the 'locale' parameter's role and administrator override. Only 'limit' lacks description, but its schema constraints and default are sufficient. With schema description coverage at 33%, the description effectively 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('searches') and clearly identifies the resource ('explainers') and the exact searchable fields (English/Arabic title, slug, summary, content). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_terminology and get_news_by_id.

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 states when to use this tool ('should call this before creating a new explainer to avoid duplicates') and explains role-based behavior (administrators vs other accounts) and locale handling. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the context is clear enough to guide selection.

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