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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful scope constraint that only 'published' tools are searched, but it does not discuss pagination behavior, empty results, or fallback matching beyond what the schema already states.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the core action and scope immediately.

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?

Given eight optional parameters, full schema descriptions, and read-only annotations, the description provides the minimum needed to understand the tool's core purpose. However, it omits routing guidance among siblings and does not describe return or pagination behavior, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent choosing and invoking the tool.

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 all eight parameters are already thoroughly documented in the input schema. The description echoes the text, place, and category facets, but adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides for q, city/region/country, category, sort, limit, or cursor.

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 uses a specific verb (Search) and resource (published AI governance tools), and names the search facets: text, place, and category. It distinguishes this plural search operation from get_listing and the list_* siblings, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 by the phrase 'Search ... by text, place and category.' There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus get_listing, list_categories, list_places, or list_sources, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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