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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/safe behavior, and the description adds real value: a ranked result set with a 0.0–1.0 relevance score and the enumerated level taxonomy. It does not mention pagination, but the depth of return context exceeds annotation coverage.

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, front-loaded with the verb+resource, then a compact enumeration of return shape. Dense but efficient; the only mild bloat is the long field list in sentence two.

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 compensates by listing the return fields and relevance scale. For a read-only search tool with full schema coverage, this is near-complete; only pagination/empty-result behavior is unaddressed.

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%, including the nuanced query_language vs language distinction, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description only gestures at returned fields (level, group, URI) and adds nothing beyond what the schema already documents.

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 ('free-text search') and resource ('PTPGE vocabulary and registers'), plus the domain gloss 'the open specification of print'. It implicitly separates from siblings like ptpge_get_term (URI lookup) and ptpge_browse (navigation) by framing this as free-text ranked search, though it never names them.

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 word 'free-text' signals when this applies versus exact lookups, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or reference to ptpge_browse or ptpge_get_term as alternatives. Guidance 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.