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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond that by disclosing the shape of each hit (topic id, difficulty levels, question types, sigmaprep.io page), which is genuinely useful for planning follow-up calls. It stops short of noting result limits or ranking behavior.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The scope statement comes first and the return-shape sentence second, which is the right front-loading for a search tool.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so adequately by naming the per-result fields. It is still silent on result count, ranking, and pagination, which an agent may want when composing a query.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline would be 3. The description nevertheless adds meaning the schema lacks: it enumerates the actual course values (Pre-Algebra through Statistics) that the free-text 'course' parameter accepts, effectively documenting the implied domain of a field the schema only illustrates with one example.

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 (Finds) and resource (Sigma Prep math worksheet topics) and enumerates the six course domains covered, so the agent knows exactly what universe is searchable. It is plainly distinguishable from the sibling create_worksheet, which is a write operation.

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 phrase 'match a request in plain words' implies how to query, and the sibling set makes the read-vs-write split obvious, but the description never states when to prefer this tool, when not to use it, or what happens if no topic matches. Usage is implied rather than specified.

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