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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context: it returns only excerpts, includes total result counts, exposes nextOffset (null when exhausted), and points to other tools for full content. It does not mention auth or rate limits, but the main behavioral traits are covered.

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 tightly written sentences front-load the purpose and scope, then summarize return shape and alternatives. Every part earns its place with no redundancy.

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 read-only search tool with full schema coverage, output schema, and safety annotations, the description is nearly complete. The only minor gap is that it does not explicitly distinguish this search from search_faq or list_recipes, though the resource scope makes the distinction reasonably clear.

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 four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only indirectly references nextOffset/pagination and does not add syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Recherche') and names the exact resource: public articles and recipes on Elfy.Life, with topical scope. It also distinguishes itself from siblings get_article and get_recipe by explaining that those provide full content, making the search-vs-fetch boundary clear.

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?

It clearly implies the tool is for discovery and explicitly routes full-content retrieval to get_article and get_recipe. However, it does not clarify when to use this instead of sibling tools like search_faq or list_recipes, so the alternatives guidance is strong but not exhaustive.

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