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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint all signal a safe read). The description adds value beyond those by disclosing the result contract: it returns lightweight pointers ('ids, titles and URLs') rather than full facts, and scopes what is searched. No contradiction with annotations.

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 English portion is dense, front-loaded with the verb and scope, and uses vivid real-user examples. However, the trailing Hebrew sentence is a near-total duplicate of the entire English description rather than a compact gloss, so it does not fully earn its place in an agent-facing definition.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly takes on the job of explaining the return shape ('Returns ids, titles and URLs') and next-step routing to fetch/specific tools. Gaps are minor: limit semantics, result ordering, and no-results behavior are not mentioned, but for a two-parameter read-only search tool this is mostly sufficient.

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%: query is well-documented with examples in the schema, and the description reinforces the free-text/bilingual semantics and content categories. However, the limit parameter has no description in either place, and the description does not confirm that limit caps the number of returned ids/titles/URLs. At 50% coverage, the description should compensate more.

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 and resource ('Free-text search... across the site') and enumerates the exact content scoped: people's questions, tests, specialists, covers of 7 insurers, and surgeons on arrangement lists. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like find_surgeon or get_cover, which target narrower slices of the same domain.

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?

Gives clear context that search is the discovery entry point and explicitly routes onward: 'use fetch(id) or the specific tools for the full facts.' This tells the agent when search is insufficient, though it stops short of naming conditions for preferring specific siblings (e.g., 'use find_surgeon when you already know the surgeon's name').

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