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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: matching is case-insensitive and diacritic-insensitive, which affects how an agent should phrase the query. It stops short of describing result ordering or pagination 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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds the matching caveat in a parenthetical. 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?

For a two-parameter search tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description is nearly sufficient: it states scope and matching rules. It omits result ordering/limit interaction, but that is minor given the limit parameter is self-documented.

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 the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining the matching semantics (case- and diacritic-insensitive) that govern how the `query` value is interpreted, which is directly actionable for the required parameter.

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?

Specific verb ("Wyszukuje") plus a concrete resource ("wpisy na blogu ASAPDevs") and the fields searched (title, lead, tag). This is unmistakably distinct from the sibling tools (get_contact, get_pricing, list_case_studies, list_offers), which cover entirely different resources.

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 implied — search blog posts when you need to find one by phrase — but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tool is named for the case where the exact post is already known.

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