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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only safety profile is covered. The description adds scope and language context but does not disclose result format, pagination, sorting, or failure behavior. Given the annotation coverage, this is adequate but not rich.

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 description is two short sentences: the first states the action and scope, the second gives the practical use case. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail, and the key purpose is front-loaded.

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 simple search tool with a readOnlyHint, a fully documented two-parameter schema, and no nested structures, the description plus schema is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. The absence of an output schema is acceptable here because the tool's behavior and purpose are clear.

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 100%, with both query and size already described in the input schema. The description reinforces the search intent but adds no parameter-level details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific operation: 'Recherche plein texte dans toute la bibliothèque Sefaria', with a clear resource and language scope. It adds the use case 'retrouver une source dont on connaît les mots mais pas la référence', which makes the purpose concrete. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like sefaria_text or sefaria_links, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 'Utile pour retrouver une source dont on connaît les mots mais pas la référence' gives a clear when-to-use context. It does not mention exclusions or explicitly recommend an alternative tool, so it lacks the explicit when-not/alternatives guidance needed for a 5.

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