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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. Beyond that the description adds nothing: no ranking behavior, no result limits, no indication of whether results span all three corpora or are mixed and ranked.

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 short sentences with the resource list front-loaded and no padding. The second sentence is somewhat vague ("the other tools") but does useful routing work rather than being filler.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, so the description need not explain return values. Still, an agent cannot tell how results from guides, programmes, and country records are combined or how to decide between this and find_guides, which is a meaningful gap for a catch-all search.

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% and the single query parameter carries a concrete example ("digital nomad visa minimum income") in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax guidance, so it does not improve on what the schema already provides; 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?

The description gives a concrete verb ("Search") and enumerates the corpora it covers: guides, programmes, and country records. That is enough to distinguish it from siblings at a high level, though it does not explain how it differs from find_guides, which appears to overlap with the "guides" corpus.

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?

"Use when the question does not fit the other tools" gives a fallback trigger, which is genuinely useful routing guidance. However, it never names the alternatives or states when this tool should be avoided, leaving overlap with find_guides and country_overview unresolved.

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