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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, and the description adds real value on top: results are limited to *published public* guides only, covering Macedonian and English, and it names the fields returned (titles, summaries, language, source URLs). It does not mention ranking behavior or what happens when nothing matches, which is the only notable gap.

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 sentences, all load-bearing: trigger condition first, then scope and return shape, then the follow-up action. No restatement of the tool name or filler.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating returned fields and the two supported languages. A mutation-free, three-parameter search tool is well covered; only result-count/empty-result behavior is left unstated.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden. It partially compensates by constraining the query domain (translation, Apostille, visas, countries, institutions) and by implying the language filter via "Macedonian and English," but the `limit` parameter and query format/length expectations are never explained.

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?

Specific verb (search) plus specific resource (published public guides) plus domain scope (document translation, Apostille, visas, countries, institutions covered by Official Translator). It also previews the return payload, so an agent can tell this apart from fetch_published_guide, which is the retrieval step that follows.

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 explicit trigger conditions ("Use this when a user asks about document translation, Apostille, visas...") and explicitly routes to the sibling workflow step with "Fetch the most relevant result before answering." Both when-to-use and what-to-do-next are stated rather than inferred.

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