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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the corpus language, that matching is stem-based, and the exact shape of results (url, title, snippet, score). It is silent on auth/rate limits, but for a read-only search that omission is minor.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then the language/query constraint, then the return contract. The examples are short and directly operational; nothing is 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 explicitly covers the return fields, and it covers the input constraint that matters most (query language and phrasing) plus the default result behavior. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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, but the description earns more by explaining the query in terms the schema does not: natural-language question form, Norwegian language requirement, and stem matching. It adds meaning beyond the schema's terse "What to look for, in Norwegian."

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?

States a specific verb and resource (search the content of this website) and clearly bounds the corpus, distinguishing it from a general web search. It also names what comes back (best-matching pages), so an agent knows exactly what this tool does before reading the 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?

Gives explicit, actionable usage guidance: the query must be written in Norwegian (bokmål), as a short question or keywords, with two concrete examples. It does not state exclusions or alternatives, but with no sibling tools there is little to exclude against.

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