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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, openWorld=false, destructive=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds the useful fact that this is a bounded internal corpus (a specific library) rather than an open web search, but says nothing about result ordering, pagination, or the sections mechanism.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the corpus list earns its place by defining scope. It is dense but readable, and would only be stronger with one clause on when to prefer a sibling tool.

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?

For a simple three-parameter read tool with no output schema, the essentials are present, but the description omits how `section` should be obtained (from platform_info or a prior response) and gives no hint about result shape or result-count behavior. Adequate but with clear gaps for an agent planning a multi-step lookup.

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 67%: `limit` and `section` are documented in the schema, while `query` has no schema description. The description does not compensate for that gap (no note that query is free-text/keyword based) nor clarify how `section` relates to the returned sections list. Baseline 3 fits given the schema does most of the work.

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) plus the resource and enumerates the corpus it covers (legislation, templates, research, articles, books, films, glossary), which implicitly separates it from siblings like search_ngos and search_products. It never explicitly names those alternatives, so differentiation is by content domain rather than by routing instruction.

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 content enumeration implies what this tool is for, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no guidance on choosing it over the generic `search` or `search_ngos`, and no mention of when to pass `section` versus starting fresh. Usage is inferable but not guided.

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