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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, non-destructive), the description discloses the language handling requirement, the presence of OCR text and AI descriptions in most items, and the no-arguments listing behavior. These are valuable behavioral insights not captured in structured fields.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every clause adds meaningful detail—scope, size, content, language guidance, and a shortcut—without any filler or 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 effectively conveys scope, language, content type, and a usage shortcut. However, it does not mention pagination or offset behavior, and the 'list all' claim is ambiguous given the limit default. Nevertheless, with solid annotations and a straightforward parameter set, it is mostly 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?

The description adds useful keyword semantics (French, accent-insensitive) and a listing hint, but it does not explain the offset parameter, which lacks a schema description. More importantly, 'Call with no arguments to list all' appears inconsistent with the schema's default limit of 15, creating confusion about parameter behavior.

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's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Search the small archival-documents subset (~26 items...)' and provides scope details about the corpus content, distinguishing it from sibling search tools focused on other media types.

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?

It gives actionable context: 'Use French concept keywords regardless of the user's report language' and 'Call with no arguments to list all.' However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, and the 'list all' advice conflicts with the schema's limit default of 15, weakening the guidance.

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