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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real behavioral context: it returns exact text plus canonical sources and must not receive personal history. The privacy constraint is valuable, though the limited result set (limit max 8) is not disclosed.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the core action before the caveats. It packs three ideas (search scope, return content, privacy warning) without padding, though the sentence is somewhat run-on.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed, yet the description still summarizes them (exact text, canonical sources). The main gap is the undocumented limit parameter and the absence of explicit sibling routing.

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 only 33%, with locale documented in the schema and query/limit undocumented. The description clarifies that query is a short topic and that locale defaults to ru, which partially compensates, but the limit parameter (1-8) is never explained in either place.

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 (already published FAQ answers) with a scoping constraint (short topic, Russian or English). It is distinguishable from the sibling get_faq, though the distinction is implied by 'search' rather than stated explicitly.

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 implied usage context ('short topic', 'already published') and one explicit exclusion ('do not send personal history'), but never says when to use this instead of get_faq or get_inquiry_topics. Usage is inferable, not spelled out.

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