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

The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond the annotations: results are fixed-ordered by Elasticsearch relevance, paginated, and each match includes a source citation, page identifier, and up to five highlighted fragments. It also discloses that facets depend on supplied filters, providing valuable context that annotations alone do not convey.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value: what it does, how it behaves, and what results look like. No redundant or fluff content.

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?

Given the tool has 9 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior (search, ordering, pagination, match contents, facets) but does not elaborate on pagination parameters (start, number_show) or filter specifics. It is sufficient for a search tool but leaves some gaps.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description must compensate by explaining parameter meanings, but it only vaguely refers to 'supplied filters' without detailing specific parameters like q, lang, start, number_show, year_start, or archive_code. The description does not add meaningful semantics beyond the parameter names themselves.

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 clearly states the tool performs a full-text search across page transcriptions, with a specific verb ('search') and resource ('page transcriptions'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings like search_records (which searches records) and show_transcription (which shows a single transcription), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 description provides clear context by noting it mirrors the search UI at /transcripties/zoek.php and explains the search behavior. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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