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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that by disclosing the searched fields and, importantly, that answers are excluded from results — a scope fact the annotations 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?

A single front-loaded clause with no filler; every element (searched surfaces, examples, answer exclusion) earns its place. It is a sentence fragment rather than a full statement, which is slightly less clear but costs no tokens.

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 4 fully documented parameters, an enum, and no output schema, the definition covers what an agent needs: what is searched and what is omitted from the response. Minor gaps remain around result ordering and whether matches are exact or fuzzy, but nothing blocking.

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% (query, count, lang, level all documented with defaults and the AND semantics of query), so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description adds only illustrative query examples ('cardinal mark', 'MAYDAY'), which are mildly helpful but not essential.

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 resource (questions) and the exact fields searched — text, options, rule reference, topic — plus a scope qualifier ('without the answers'). That distinguishes it clearly from get_questions (which presumably returns answers) and from search_theory, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: searching by keyword when you don't need answers. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to get_questions, explain_question, or search_theory, so the agent must infer routing from sibling names.

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