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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and succeeds: it discloses auth requirements ('public, no key needed'), search syntax (quotes, -word), output fields (publisher, prices, word count, snippet), and an explicit limitation ('never the body'). This is above-average transparency for a read-only search tool.

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 sentences with zero waste. Purpose, syntax, return contents, and usage guidance are each given their own focused sentence, front-loaded with the most critical 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?

For a search tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know: scope, auth, syntax, return fields, limitations, and follow-up tools. Nothing essential 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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value beyond the schema by explaining the query parameter's supported syntax ('quotes for phrases and -word to exclude') and natural-language prompting, which the schema's 'Search words' does not convey.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Full-text search across everything licensable on Opedd.' It also differentiates from sibling tools by explicitly directing users to lookup_content or get_content for specific articles, making the search tool's role distinct.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool ('does Opedd have coverage on X') and routes to named alternatives ('then lookup_content or get_content for a specific article'). This gives clear context and exclusion guidance.

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