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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds that retrieval is semantic/RAG rather than keyword-based, which is a genuine behavioral trait, but it says nothing about result format, ranking, or what the corpus contains.

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 with no padding and the required-parameter note front-loaded, but the brevity crosses into under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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, 0% parameter coverage, and no guidance on scope versus siblings, the description leaves too much for an agent to infer before calling it 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for all three parameters. The description only mentions that query is required, leaving limit and source entirely unexplained, so it does not compensate for the schema gap in a meaningful way.

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?

It states a specific verb (semantic search) and resource (the corpus, framed as RAG), so the basic action is understandable. However, it does not distinguish itself from the many sibling search tools (search_cytaty, search_glosowania, search_kasta, etc.), leaving ambiguous whether this is an umbrella search or something else.

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?

"Wymaga query" is a parameter requirement, not usage guidance. There is no statement of when to prefer this over search_cytaty/search_glosowania or whether it covers all sources by default.

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