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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: corpus size (~1,400 articles), topic coverage, language breadth, and the exact return shape (titles, short summaries, page URLs).

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 tight sentences, no filler. The corpus scope is front-loaded and the follow-up hint lands at the end where the agent needs it.

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 read-only search with no output schema, the description covers corpus, return format and next step, which is nearly everything an agent needs. Minor gap: no mention of pagination or how limit behaves when results are broader than expected.

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 75%, so the baseline is near 3, but the description adds meaning: the '40 languages' claim gives context for the language param and the enumerated content types map onto the section enum, helping the agent pick a value. It still doesn't explain limit (default 10, max 25).

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?

Specific verb (Search) plus a precisely scoped resource (udansa editorial content: ~1,400 guide articles, city guides, dance style pages, 40 languages). The scope cleanly separates it from siblings like search_dance_courses, search_dance_events and read_page_text.

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 states the follow-up path explicitly ('read one with read_page_text'), which is genuine routing guidance, and the content scope implies when this tool applies versus the course/event search siblings. However, it never states an explicit when-not or a direct comparison to the other search tools.

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