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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds context that the blog has ~550 Romanian articles and that matching is against slugs, returning URLs. This goes beyond the annotations by specifying the scope and output format, without contradicting them.

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 a single, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It includes relevant specifics (blog, article count, language, slug matching, output) with no filler or redundancy.

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 two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior: what it searches (blog posts), how (by slug), and what it returns (URLs). It could optionally mention result ordering or the absence of content snippets, but the given information is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool 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?

The schema already describes the 'query' parameter with 'Keyword(s) to match in the article slug/URL (Romanian, no diacritics).' The description echoes this by mentioning 'keyword against article slugs' but adds no new meaning. The 'limit' parameter is only documented via its schema (type, default, min, max), with no descriptive text. Since schema coverage is 50%, the description partially compensates but not fully.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search the SCA Zandomeni legal blog (~550 articles, Romanian) by keyword against article slugs.' It specifies the exact resource (blog posts on zandomeni.eu), the search mechanism (slugs), and the output (URLs). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_blog_post, which likely retrieves individual posts, and list_expertise_areas.

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 implies the tool is for finding blog posts by keyword, which is clear from the phrase 'Search the SCA Zandomeni legal blog.' It provides context about the blog's language and size, but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention sibling tools. However, the intent is evident, and the lack of explicit alternatives is acceptable given the distinct purpose.

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