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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context about fuzzy matching over a large corpus, but says nothing about result ordering, pagination beyond the limit param, or how fuzzy matches rank — meaningful gaps for a search tool.

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, no filler, and the scope (corpus size and match targets) is front-loaded before the usage statement. Every 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the description supplies corpus size, match targets, and fuzzy/normalization behavior. The only shortfall is the absence of guidance on how this relates to the filter-based sibling for a two-parameter tool in a 12-tool family.

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%, including diacritic normalization and the 1–200 character range, so the schema carries parameter meaning on its own. The description restates the matched fields (title/author/narrator) which the schema already documents, adding no new semantics; baseline 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?

States a specific verb (search) plus resource (audiobooks) and adds concrete scope: full-text + fuzzy matching over 12,000 Czech audiobooks across title, author, and narrator. It does not name or contrast with the sibling search_by_filters, so an agent must open the schemas to tell them apart.

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?

"Use when an agent needs to resolve a free-form query into one or more audiobook records" gives a clear usage context and implicitly rules out structured-filter lookups. However, it never names search_by_filters as the alternative for filtered browsing, so no explicit when-not guidance is provided.

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