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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful return-side context: each hit includes authors, issue date, full citation, multilingual subject headings, Dewey subject, stable URL, and 10-item pagination. It omits auth and rate-limit details, but adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations.

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 short sentences with the purpose front-loaded, followed by result payload details and pagination. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant restatement of the tool name or schema fields.

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?

For a simple 3-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the description covers scope, supported collections, result fields, and pagination size. Schema and annotations fill in the remaining parameter and safety details, so an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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%, and the schema documents query, page, and collection including enum values. The description only restates pagination and collection breadth, adding no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents parameters.

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 'digital library of the National Parliamentary Library of Georgia', and clarifies the collection scope. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as nplg_search or nplg_record_marc, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Describes what the collection contains and that results paginate 10 at a time, implying use for full-text searches over this digital library. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or sibling routing guidance against nplg_search or nplg_record_marc.

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