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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds meaningful context that results may include unverified records and should be source-cited, but it does not discuss pagination, rate limits, or other operational behavior.

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 front-loaded and reasonably short, but the second sentence repeats the dialect/island/Estonia information already in the first. The bilingual duplication adds little beyond language accessibility.

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 simple search tool with no output schema, the description gives the domain and a useful result-handling caveat about sources and unverified entries. It remains incomplete because it does not explain the available parameters or expected return structure.

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%, so the description must explain q, limit, and direction. It only hints at bilingual searching via 'Kasuta nii muhu kui eesti teksti' and does not explain the limit or direction parameters, leaving most parameter meaning to inference from names.

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 uses a specific verb ('Otsi' / search) and names the resource precisely: Muhu dialect words, expressions, and examples. It clearly distinguishes the domain from generic search, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_muhu_entry or list_muhu_sources.

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?

It gives useful usage context: use both Muhu and Estonian text, cite sources, and distinguish unverified entries. However, it never states when to use this tool versus get_muhu_entry or list_muhu_sources, leaving alternative selection implicit.

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