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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the corpus language (German) and the shape of the return payload (title, direct answer, URL). It does not mention result counts, truncation, or what happens when no article matches.

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 with zero waste: the purpose and topic scope come first, the return shape second. Nothing repeats the name, title, or schema.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description covers the return fields, which is the main gap it needed to close for a read-only search tool. Remaining omissions (pagination, empty-result behavior, query formatting) are minor for a single-parameter lookup.

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% for the single 'query' parameter, so the description is the only place semantics can come from. The topic enumeration hints at what to query for, but nothing addresses query format, language, natural-language vs keyword, or the 2-200 character bounds. Partially compensating, with clear gaps.

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'), a specific resource ('LivaGlow guide articles'), and enumerates the covered topics (dishwasher safety, porcelain vs ceramic, photo resolution, printing costs, durability, gift ideas). An agent can distinguish it from search_faq and calculate_price by subject matter. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it replaces, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

Usage is implied by the topic list (look here for advisory content about printed mugs), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the nearest alternative, search_faq, even though the two overlap in intent. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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