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

Beyond the annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), the description reveals important behavior: results carry markdown URLs, full pages must be fetched rather than scraped, and Hebrew queries perform better. This materially changes how an agent should invoke and follow up on the tool.

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, each earning its place: scope, when to use it, and behavior/language guidance. The most important routing information is front-loaded, with zero filler.

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 search tool with only two well-documented parameters, a rich output schema, and safety annotations, the description covers scope, fallback usage, result handling, and search quality. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to decide when to call it and how to act on results.

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 already 3. The description adds value by explaining that Hebrew queries 'match far more than English ones,' reinforcing the q parameter's language preference beyond the schema's 'preferably Hebrew.' The limit parameter is left to the schema, which is acceptable given its coverage.

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 names a specific verb ('Search') and a precise scope ('every published page') with a concrete enumeration of content types. It also differentiates itself from the specialized sibling tools by positioning itself as the general fallback.

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 line 'Use this whenever the question is not covered by one of the specific tools' is an explicit when-to-use instruction, clearly routing the agent toward this tool versus the specialized siblings. However, it does not name the alternatives directly or give when-not-to-use exclusions beyond the general fallback framing.

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