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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint: false and openWorldHint: false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds useful behavior beyond them: that nothing is stored, and importantly that an empty query returns the entire catalog rather than erroring or returning nothing. It does not discuss result size limits or pagination, which is the remaining gap for a ~70-item catalog.

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?

Four short sentences ordered purpose → return shape → when to use → when not to use → edge case, with the scope front-loaded. The sector enumeration is the only long element, and it earns its place by giving the agent matching vocabulary for queries.

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 one-optional-parameter, read-only search tool, the definition covers purpose, return fields (compensating for the absent output schema), query semantics, empty-query behavior and the sibling routing decision. Nothing an agent needs in order 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 description coverage is 100%, and the parameter's own description already covers Arabic/English input, which fields are matched, and that omitting it lists everything. The description restates the same semantics rather than extending them with matching behavior details (e.g. partial vs whole-word matching, multi-word handling), so 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 ("Search") and resource ("catalog of about 70 free Arabic Excel templates") with concrete domain examples and the exact fields returned (id, Arabic title, description, sector, page URL, download URL). It explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling list_calculators, so an agent can pick it without opening the 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?

Gives an explicit positive trigger ("use it first whenever the user needs a tracking sheet or a multi-row calculation") and an explicit exclusion that names the alternative tool and the cases that select it ("For a single quick calculation (VAT, BMI, gold zakat) use list_calculators instead"). Nothing about when to invoke it is left to inference.

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