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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world), and the description adds search mechanics (two-pass: question index then titles/topics), result shape (slug, chapter, lab settings), and the no-results condition. It doesn't mention rate limits or latency, which is a minor gap.

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?

Front-loaded usage trigger with concrete bilingual examples, then mechanics, then exclusions. Slightly long and example-heavy, but every sentence earns its place for a routing tool.

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 entry point with full schema coverage and annotations, the description is complete: trigger conditions, search behavior, return contents, follow-up tool, and failure mode are all covered.

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 schema already documents query, lang, and limit thoroughly including enums, bounds, and defaults. The description restates query semantics (user's own words, any language) but adds little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (search) and resource (interactive 3D models/plates on world.lapla.si), with the exact question types it covers and hand-off to show_model. Clearly differentiates from siblings list_chapters and show_model.

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?

Explicit when-to-use with example queries, explicit when-NOT-to-use (news, prices, homework calculations, medical/legal/financial advice), and names the follow-up tool show_model. Nothing left to inference.

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