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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false (a closed, local corpus), and the description is consistent with that. It adds genuinely useful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: result ordering ('best matches first'), German stemming, the returned fields, and the unusual disclosure that replies begin with the fixed phrase 'Steiner hat gesagt:'. It stops short of describing paging behavior or maximum result semantics, which keeps it off a 5.

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?

The purpose and return shape are front-loaded, and the query-syntax sentence is compact and high-value. The final sentence about the fixed reply prefix is oddly placed but still earns its place by warning about an unusual output artifact.

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 six parameters fully covered by schema descriptions and no output schema, the description carries the remaining burden well: it lists returned fields, ordering, language, and query grammar. The main omission is any hint about how paging interacts with ranking or whether results are capped, which an agent paging through a large corpus would want.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds real value for 'query' by explaining the web-search syntax (implicit AND, quoted phrases, OR, minus-exclusion) and stemming, but contributes nothing beyond the schema for ga, limit, offset, or the date filters.

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?

The first sentence names a specific verb and resource ('Full-text search across Rudolf Steiner's collected works (German)') and enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'count_matches', which likely operates over the same corpus, so sibling differentiation is left to 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 description says what the tool does but never states when to prefer it over 'count_matches', 'read' or 'get_work', nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The query-syntax notes are parameter usage guidance, not tool-selection guidance, so an agent must infer routing from sibling names alone.

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