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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value by disclosing the return shape (ids, not full records) and the scope restriction to 'public' content only — two things an agent could not learn from the 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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The scope enumeration is front-loaded and the chaining hint follows immediately. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 correctly compensates by stating that ids are returned and pointing to fetch for the actual records. What remains thin is the absence of any tie-break against the six sibling search/list tools, which an agent routing a query genuinely needs.

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?

One required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds only the word 'keyword', and the TR/EN acceptance detail is already in the schema, so it contributes nothing beyond structured fields.

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 (search) and an explicitly enumerated resource scope — NGOs, events, volunteering, funding calls, stores, products, library, pages — so the agent knows exactly what corpus is covered. It implicitly distinguishes itself from entity-specific siblings via 'everything public', but never names them, so differentiation requires inference.

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 phrase 'Returns ids for the fetch tool' gives a useful workflow cue — this is a discovery step that must be chained into fetch. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this broad search over search_ngos, search_products, or search_library, and no mention of result limits or query behavior.

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