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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further by explaining retrieval internals, that results expose matched_terms/unmatched_terms, and that 'partial' means incomplete lexical evidence rather than a failed entity match — real behavioral context an agent could not get from annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and tightly packed; nearly every sentence carries a distinct constraint. Minor drag from jargon-ish phrasing ('published blocks or reviewed navigation metadata') that assumes internal model knowledge.

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 and annotations covering safety, the description still fills the gaps that matter: result-field semantics, the meaning of 'partial', and query-language constraints. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 0% and the description does not mention the 'limit' parameter at all. It does add meaningful guidance about the 'query' content (Russian text with Russian/English place aliases, place vs topic vs question, a city alone insufficient), partially compensating for the coverage gap.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search current published Belgium Art knowledge by place, topic or question', and the lexical-retrieval sentence clarifies the mechanism. It does not name any sibling (get_place, get_answer, get_questions) to differentiate itself, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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 gives input-quality constraints ('A city alone is insufficient. Never substitute another city') and implies this is the entry point for place/topic/question lookups, but never says when to use this instead of get_place, get_answer, or get_questions. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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