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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description supplements this with useful behavior the annotations do not cover: results are short passages carrying page URLs intended for citation, and the corpus is a free public library, implying no auth or mutation concerns.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what the tool searches, followed by what it returns and how to phrase input. Every sentence carries information; only very minor redundancy between the title and the opening verb.

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?

Covers scope, content types, input style, and return format (passages plus citation URLs) despite there being no output schema. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile and a fully documented schema, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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%, so both parameters (query, language) are fully documented with examples and an enum. The description's 'use a few precise keywords' reinforces the query parameter but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the 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 (searches) and resource (KrakenShield Knowledge Center), then enumerates the exact content types covered: glossary, acronyms, certifications, and the 'Cyber from A to Z' guide. This is unambiguous and easily distinguishable from check_ssl and get_pricing.

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?

Gives concrete usage guidance ('Use a few precise keywords') and example query shapes, and the language parameter description tells the agent to match the conversation language. It does not name conditions for choosing an alternative, but no sibling overlaps in scope, so this is close to sufficient.

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