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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope (Danish-language articles with cited sources, topic areas) but says nothing about ranking, result count behavior, or what a match looks like.

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 resource front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple search tool, though the topic list could be trimmed slightly.

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?

With a documented two-parameter schema, no output schema, and annotations covering safety and openness, the description carries the remaining burden of defining the corpus — which it does. Only the relationship to sibling search tools is left unaddressed.

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% — both query and limit (1-20, default 8) are documented with examples in the schema. The description adds no parameter detail beyond what is already structured, so 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) and resource (Adbull's Danish articles) plus the topic scope, so the agent knows exactly what corpus is queried. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the close sibling search_cases, so it stops short of a 5.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is for keyword lookups of article content, but there is no guidance on when to prefer it over search_cases, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions. Minimum viable routing information.

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