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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds genuine context beyond that: bilingual Hebrew/English query support and the exact return shape (title, URL, snippet) ranked by relevance. It does not mention result-count defaults or that results are capped, leaving that to the schema.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with scope and content types, then return shape, then the follow-up tool. No sentence is redundant.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so (title, URL, snippet). Combined with annotations covering the safety profile, an agent has nearly everything needed; only the result-limit behavior is left implicit.

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 50% and the schema itself gives a good example for `query`; the description adds that queries may be Hebrew or English, which the schema does not say. However, the `limit` parameter (default 5, max 10) is undocumented in both places, so the description only partially compensates.

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) over a named, scoped resource (all pages of arieladler.co.il) and enumerates the content types covered (services, portfolio, articles, courses). It is clearly distinguishable from get_page, which is named as the read-in-full sibling.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: search first, then 'Use get_page to read one in full,' which names the alternative and the condition that selects it. It does not state when NOT to search (e.g. when a known URL is already available), so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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