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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explicitly states that the tool returns sources and is not a generative answer. It also specifies the query language ('na hrvatskom ili po engleskim ključnim riječima'). These details complement the readOnly and idempotent hints, providing useful insight into the tool's behavior.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary purpose and then adds the key behavioral caveat. Every word earns its place, and the structure is efficient.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the search scope, query language, and return type. However, it omits details about the 'limit' parameter, the structure of returned sources, and any ordering or pagination behavior. Given the simplicity, this is adequate but not fully complete.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'query' parameter's language semantics but does not mention the 'limit' parameter at all. Since only one of the two parameters is described, and the description does not cover limits or defaults, it falls short of compensating for the schema gap.

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 tool performs a search ('Pretraga') over specific resource types: functionalities, limitations, and pilots. It also clarifies the return type ('Vraća izvore; nije generativni odgovor'), distinguishing it from a generative response. While it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, the verb 'search' and resource scope make the purpose 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the siblings 'get_knowledge' or 'list_capabilities'. There is no mention of alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites. The description only states what it does, not when it is the appropriate choice.

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