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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: results include links, pack facets, an exact total, and the chat previews only the top 3 free results — a non-obvious rendering constraint the agent would otherwise miss.

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 compact sentences with no filler: capability first, then return contents, then the preview limitation. Each sentence adds distinct information and the most decision-relevant material is front-loaded.

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?

Return behavior is well covered even without an output schema, which is a real strength for a 10-parameter tool. The gap is input-side: seven filter parameters and two pagination parameters are unexplained, so an agent cannot confidently construct anything beyond a bare 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 description coverage is 0% across 10 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails it. It clarifies only that the query is free-text in English or Arabic, and hints at a 'free' filter, but never explains pack, style, season, setting, activity, character, limit, or offset.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Search Fanio scenes and icons') and adds scope ('by words in English or Arabic, with optional filters'), which is far more than a restatement of the name. It stops short of distinguishing itself from siblings like get_scene or list_packs, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 by the search framing and the mention of optional filters, so an agent can infer this is the keyword-retrieval entry point. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_scene or list_packs, and no exclusion or prerequisite guidance.

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