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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so 'read-only' in the description is largely redundant. The description adds no behavior beyond annotations: no result-limit behavior, no locale handling, no indication of what the search covers or how results are ranked.

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 well-formed sentence with the action and resource front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized for a search tool, though there is room to use the remaining space for parameter or usage guidance.

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 described, and annotations carry the safety profile. The remaining gaps are the unaddressed limit/locale parameters and the lack of routing versus sibling retrieval tools, leaving the definition minimally viable but incomplete.

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 0% and the description only obliquely characterizes 'query' as a task/decision/topic phrasing; it says nothing about the 'limit' cap (max 10) or the 'locale' enum (en/de/fr). With three undocumented parameters, the description does not compensate 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?

States a specific verb ('find') and resource (Zephior articles, guides, comparisons, industry briefs, glossary resources), so the agent knows this is a content search over Zephior's public library. It does not explicitly name the sibling it contrasts with (e.g., get_zephior_document for direct retrieval), so differentiation is inferable but not stated.

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 phrase 'by the user task, decision or topic they answer' implies what kinds of queries belong here, which is a useful usage signal. However, there is no explicit when-not-to-use condition and no named alternative among the many siblings (get_zephior_document, get_zephior_overview, search_public_tenders).

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