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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the result limit (up to 15 series) and the presence of codes, but it does not describe the return format, potential error cases, or whether the operation has any side effects. Since it is a search function, the lack of side-effect disclosure is acceptable, but the description could be more detailed about output structure.

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?

The description is two concise sentences with no redundant information. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, scope, and output without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

The description provides sufficient context for an agent to understand what the tool does, what it returns, and how it fits into a larger workflow (use with get_panel). It does not specify the exact output schema or edge cases, but given the simplicity of the tool and the absence of an output schema, the description is adequately complete.

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?

The description of the only parameter 'q' is highly informative: it specifies that it is a substring with a minimum length of 2 characters and provides multiple examples in both English and Mongolian. This goes well beyond the schema's basic type definition and makes the parameter's semantics completely clear.

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 clearly states the action (search), the resource (series catalog), and the search criteria (by code or name in English or Mongolian). It also mentions the return of up to 15 series with codes, which differentiates it from other tools like get_panel and supports its intended downstream use.

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 description implies usage by stating it returns codes for use in get_panel, giving clear context for when to employ this tool. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the purpose is specific enough to guide appropriate use.

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