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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe, read-only nature is already conveyed. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying the return payload: the 3 most relevant contents with links, including a Markdown variant. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no redundant or irrelevant text. Every clause adds value, from the scope of searchable content to the specific result count and Markdown output option.

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 search tool with a 100% covered schema, readOnly annotation, and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it searches, and what it returns (3 links, optionally in Markdown). It is self-sufficient and leaves no major gap for the agent to infer.

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%, meaning both 'query' and 'language' are already well-documented with examples and constraints. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so it meets the baseline but does not elevate it. The mention of returning 3 relevant contents is a result trait, not parameter semantics.

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 ('Cerca tra gli articoli... e le pagine servizi/strumenti') and identifies the specific resource set (Sequel Observatory articles and services/tools pages) along with covered topics. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like google_updates_status by focusing on content search rather than status monitoring.

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 usage by describing what is searched and the result format, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of exclusions or comparison to siblings like quick_site_check or request_quote, so the guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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