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

Annotations already establish the safe read-only, closed-world profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine behavioral value beyond them by disclosing that results are short excerpts with links and the basis of each rule, not full documents — a trait that shapes how the agent should follow up.

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 compact sentences with zero filler; the capability statement is front-loaded and the follow-up routing is appended where it is useful. Every clause earns its place.

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 an output schema present the description needn't detail return values, and it sensibly summarizes the response shape anyway. It is complete for a search tool, though it could note the closed-world scope limitation implied by openWorldHint=false.

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% and all three parameters (query, lang, limit) are documented in the schema, so the description adds no parameter meaning beyond it. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (Search) and resource scope, enumerating the content types it covers (tool cards, terms, forms, courses, guides, rules). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from get_tool_card, which returns full text, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening a schema.

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 routes the agent to the sibling get_tool_card when full text is needed, which is clear context-specific guidance. It lacks explicit when-not conditions (e.g. when to prefer ask or diagnose over raw search), so it falls short of full when/when-not coverage.

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