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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral information beyond that: results are identifiers rather than full documents, and those ids are meant to be passed to fetch. It omits result limits, ranking behavior, and what happens on zero matches, which keeps it below a 5.

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, front-loaded with the verb and content scope, then the return contract. No filler, no repetition of the title, and the fetch hand-off is placed exactly where an agent needs it.

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 2-parameter entry-point search with no output schema, the description covers purpose, domain breadth, and the shape of the return value well enough to call it correctly. The remaining gap is routing guidance against the six narrower sibling tools, which a single clause could have closed.

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%, and the kind enum already enumerates every content type. The description's content list ('visa guides, rules, 150 FAQs, nationality pages, place guides, immigration offices and tools') roughly mirrors those enum values without adding format, syntax, or matching semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 gives a specific verb (Search) plus the exact resource scope: Thailand long-stay content across visa guides, rules, FAQs, nationality pages, place guides, immigration offices and tools. It also states what comes back (ids). It stops short of naming which sibling to prefer, so an agent can't fully separate it from get_visa_rules or list_places without reading those schemas.

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 'Returns ids for the fetch tool' implies the intended search-then-fetch workflow, which is real guidance. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this broad search versus the narrower siblings (get_visa_rules, list_places, find_immigration_office, check_visa_eligibility), so the routing decision is left to inference.

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