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

Beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations, the description discloses that rows show only the first 600 characters, that the local EmbeddingGemma 2 model is used with no API key and an initial ~350 MB download, and that similarity_score is only comparable within one query. These are exactly the behavioral details an agent needs before calling.

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 compact and front-loads the key scope line before coverage caveats, truncation behavior, runtime details, and score caveat. Every sentence adds actionable information, and the parenthetical details are dense but purposeful.

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 but with complete annotations and full schema coverage, the description fills the remaining gaps: corpus coverage, sibling alternative, truncated row display, local model behavior, and score comparability. Nothing important for correct invocation is missing.

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%, so the schema already explains query, limit, and country semantics. The description adds only marginal parameter context such as querying in any language, which is already present in the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: semantic search over publication tables of contents. It immediately distinguishes this from the lexical sibling by saying to use search_publications for the rest, and it names the exact coverage limitation.

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 explicitly tells the agent when this tool is applicable: only the ~40% of issues that have table-of-contents data, with none for An-Nasr Vendredi. It also names the alternative search_publications for the remaining cases, leaving no routing ambiguity.

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