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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so safety and scope are covered structurally. The description adds the useful fact that results are ids consumed by fetch, which is behavioral context beyond the annotations, but says nothing about result size, ranking, or pagination.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and how the result is used. No wasted words.

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?

Given one required param, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers the essentials of purpose and handoff to fetch. But the near-total absence of parameter guidance and lack of differentiation from domain-specific siblings leaves it only minimally complete.

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% and the single `query` parameter is completely undocumented. The description does not explain what the query string should contain (free text? Hebrew? keywords?), leaving the only parameter semantically empty.

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 (Find pages) plus the resource and domain, and even describes the content (Hebrew guides on Harel travel insurance). It's clear but does not distinguish itself sharply from the sibling `fetch`, only implying a relationship by saying it returns ids for fetch.

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 phrase 'Returns ids to pass to fetch' implies a two-step workflow, hinting that this is the discovery step preceding fetch. However, it does not state when to use search vs. the many domain-specific siblings (age_rules, condition_rules, coverage_limits, destination_info).

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