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 real behavioral context beyond that: it searches both Lithuanian and English text, returns pages in the requested language, and returns matched passages plus links — non-obvious traits for a search tool.

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, front-loaded with the core capability, then scope, then the operational directive. Every sentence carries information; the language directive is slightly tucked at the end rather than near the lang parameter, but there is 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by describing what is returned (pages in the requested language with matching passages and links). Combined with the annotation-backed safety profile, an agent has enough to call the tool correctly; only cross-lingual edge behavior (e.g. mixing languages) is unaddressed.

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 is 3. The description goes further by tying the query to the lang parameter ("Write the query in the user's language"), clarifying the cross-lingual matching semantics (query language drives which pages are returned) rather than merely restating field names.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Full-text search over the Lithuanian Data Portal documentation") and scopes it by noting it is the same index as the site search box. It distinguishes itself functionally from get_page/list_pages by being a query-based search rather than a lookup, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 implies usage (reach for this when you need to find pages by text, matching the site search box) and adds a language directive, but offers no explicit when-to-use versus get_page/list_pages and no exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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