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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds scope beyond the annotations by defining the exact corpus searched (editorial articles about the Portuguese used-car market) and the article categories. It does not describe result ordering or defaults, but the output schema and parameter descriptions reduce the need for that detail.

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 front-load the purpose and then give usage guidance. There is no filler or redundancy; every phrase contributes to either describing what the tool returns or when it should be selected.

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?

The definition is adequate for a simple filtered read with annotations and an output schema, but it omits how the search term is determined when the schema has no query parameter. It also does not explain how example topics like financing or IUC map to the category enum, which is important for correct invocation.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description's topic examples add useful context, but they do not map cleanly to the only parameters (limit and category), and the description never explains how the search query is supplied given that the schema has no query parameter. This leaves the agent guessing about how to actually scope a search.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Search editorial articles about the used-car market in Portugal' and lists the content types (buying guides, reviews, comparisons, market analysis). It also differentiates the tool from listing-oriented siblings by saying 'rather than asking for listings,' making the tool's boundary clear.

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?

The description explicitly says when to use the tool: 'Use this when the user asks how something works' and gives concrete examples such as financing, warranty, IUC, IPO/ITV, and the buying process. It also gives a when-not case ('rather than asking for listings'), but it does not name the sibling tool to use instead, so the guidance is clear but not fully explicit about alternatives.

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