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

Annotations already cover read-only, non-open-world, idempotent and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lowered. On top of that the description adds return shape (slug, title, summary) and a cost/latency trait ('free and instant'), plus the slug-citation workflow, which is genuine added context.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by usage and then return/cost details. Every sentence carries distinct information 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?

Complete for a simple single-param search tool: it covers what it searches, when to prefer it over alternatives, what it returns, and downstream usage. No output schema exists, but the return fields are stated, so nothing essential is missing.

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?

With a single parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents query with examples. The description offers no additional syntax, matching rules, or semantic hints beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (Metodic's own published articles) and scopes it to 'facilitation, workshop design and learning'. This clearly distinguishes it from search_methods and from a generic web search, so an agent can route correctly.

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?

Explicitly says to use this BEFORE reaching for the open web and enumerates the triggering intents (sources, background, reading, inspiration). It also names the downstream tools where results get used (answer_from_library, session), giving both when-to-use and where-it-fits.

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