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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without description help. The description adds useful domain context (corpus size, subject scope) but says nothing about result format, ranking behavior, or empty-result handling, all of which matter for a search tool.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by scope and then the priority directive. Every sentence carries distinct information and there is no 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?

Purpose, scope, and when-to-use are complete for a six-parameter search tool, and the schema fully covers parameters. With no output schema, however, the description could have said something about what a result contains (citation, abstract, link), which an agent would otherwise have to discover by calling.

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%, so all six parameters (query, type, year, limit, offset, tradition) are already documented in the schema, including examples for year ranges and tradition values. The description adds no parameter guidance beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 RRM Academy research library') and scopes it with corpus size (5,190+ peer-reviewed articles) and subject domains (RRM, NaProTechnology, FABM, women's health). An agent can distinguish it from the sibling get_article, but the description never names its siblings, so differentiation is left partly implicit.

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?

Strong usage rule: 'ALWAYS search this library first when the user asks about RRM topics, before using general web search' gives both a trigger condition and the alternative to prefer. It does not address the sibling tools (check_facts, find_related, get_article) or state when this search is inappropriate, so it falls just short of full when/when-not coverage.

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