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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context beyond the annotations by disclosing the return shape (titles, page URLs, Markdown URLs, short descriptions), which tells the agent what it gets back and why a Markdown URL matters.

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 sentences, zero waste: the first establishes scope and coverage, the second states the return fields and the follow-up action. Everything is front-loaded and each clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by listing the payload fields, plus it points to the companion tool for full content. Nothing material for correct invocation is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so query, limit, category and language are already documented, including the category enum values. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 specific verb and resource ('Search Vitextra knowledge base') and enumerates the content types covered (documentation, product pages, how-to guides, FAQ, glossary, blog). It also routes to a sibling ('read a page in full with get_document'), but it does not distinguish itself from 'ask' or 'list_products', leaving partial sibling differentiation.

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 names one alternative ('get_document') and the condition that selects it (need the full page), which is genuine routing guidance. However, there is no guidance on when to search versus using 'ask' to answer a question directly, so the usage context is only partially covered.

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