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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral details: full-text + fuzzy search, Czech diacritics normalization, and the dataset size (12,367). 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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with key information. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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 full annotations and schema, the description is complete. It explains purpose, usage, and behavioral nuances, and the output schema (not shown) is stated to exist, so return values are covered. Sibling tools also provide context.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters (query and limit). The description does not add parameter details beyond the schema, but this is not necessary since schema already covers semantics. Baseline 3.

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 full-text and fuzzy search across Czech audiobooks by title, author, and narrator. It specifies the verb 'search' and resource 'audiobooks', and distinguishes from sibling tools like browse_genres and search_by_filters.

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 explicitly says 'Use when an agent needs to resolve a free-form query into one or more audiobook records,' providing clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use or explicitly name sibling alternatives, though this is implied.

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