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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds valuable corpus-size and language context, but doesn't elaborate on pagination behavior, rate limits, or how OCR/AI descriptions affect results beyond their existence. With annotations covering the safety profile, this meets the baseline for added context.

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?

Three compact sentences, each earning its place: corpus scope, language guidance, and no-args behavior. Front-loaded with the most critical differentiator (subset size) and free of redundancy.

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?

The description adequately covers what an agent needs: corpus size, dominant country, language for keywords, and no-arg fallback. Missing details on pagination defaults (limit default 15, max 50) are left to the schema, and no output schema means the agent might wonder about return format, but the core operational picture is complete.

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 75% (3 of 4 parameters documented), so the schema does most of the heavy lifting. The description mentions keyword (French concept keywords) and implies country via 'mostly Burkina Faso', but adds no syntax or format details beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 (archival documents), and immediately scopes it to 'the small archival-documents subset (~26 items)'. This distinctively differentiates it from siblings like search_articles, search_publications, and explore_corpus, all of which target other corpora.

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?

Gives clear operational context: 'Call with no arguments to list all' and instructs to 'Use French concept keywords regardless of the user's report language.' However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or when NOT to use this one, falling short of the top score.

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