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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/destructiveHint, so the description's 'Read-only' restates structured data. It does add genuinely new behavior: default result count of 10, hard cap of 50, and the returned fields (title, year, DOI where known).

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?

Compact and front-loaded: corpus, search action, return shape, page limits and safety profile in essentially one sentence with a parenthetical. Slight awkwardness in 'for the words' but nothing wasted.

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, the description does its job by naming returned fields and the result-count ceiling. Remaining gaps (pagination beyond limit, result ordering/relevance, query syntax) are minor for a two-parameter search tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It fully documents the limit parameter's default (10) and maximum (50), which the schema lacks, but says only 'for the words' about query — no matching rules, phrase/boolean support, or which fields are searched.

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+resource ('Search Biohotspot's research library') plus the corpus scope (5,200+ papers on coasts and marine habitats) and what is returned (titles, years, DOI). This clearly separates it from the spatial/project siblings, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Use is implied by the name and the described corpus, but there is no explicit 'use this when…' guidance, no statement of when another tool (e.g. get_marine_park, understand_area) is a better choice, and no required-parameter prerequisites called out.

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