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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive nature. The description adds a behavioral detail beyond that: 'Returns verbatim excerpts with URLs.' It does not discuss rate limits or auth, but those are not essential for this tool type.

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, each earning its place: scope, use cases, and a parameter hint plus return format. The most important information (scope and purpose) is front-loaded, with no 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?

The description is complete for a read-only search tool. It covers scope, when to use it, the key parameter behavior, and the output format. An output schema exists to document the return structure, so the description doesn't need to expand on that.

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 exactly 50% (query and place have descriptions; limit and language do not). The description's mention of 'Give `place` to restrict results' restates the schema's existing description of place, adding little new meaning. It does not compensate for the undocumented limit and language 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Full-text search over official Swiss web pages', then enumerates the exact sources (ch.ch, federal offices, cantons, cities) and lists concrete use cases. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like swiss_federal_law (legal texts) or read_official_page (reading a specific page).

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?

The description provides explicit use cases: 'procedures, rules, deadlines, fees and "how do I…" questions' with examples, which tells an agent when to invoke it. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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