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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing the safety profile. The description adds that the tool 'returns top relevant chunks with links,' providing useful information about ranking and output format beyond what annotations convey. No contradictions.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and clearly communicates the core functionality without any filler or repetition.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers purpose, language scope, and return format (chunks with links). It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, though it lacks advanced details like pagination, but these are not necessary for a straightforward search tool.

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?

Only 'locale' has a schema description, giving 33% coverage. The description helps clarify the meaning of 'query' (search terms) and 'locale' (language), but it does not address the 'limit' parameter. The schema prescribes defaults and constraints, partially compensating for the absence of explanation.

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 clearly states the action (Search), the resource (UkraineBorder articles), and the specific scope (in a specific language), which distinguishes it from the generic sibling 'search' tool. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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?

The description implies that this tool is for language-specific searches, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. This provides clear context for when to use the tool, though it lacks an explicit exclusion of the generic 'search' sibling.

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