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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavioral boundaries: only published site content is searched, private customer records are not accessed, and certain pages are demoted/excluded. It does not address result ordering, pagination, side effects, or other behavioral details.

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 efficient sentences with the main purpose front-loaded, followed by exclusions and a privacy boundary. No filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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?

This is a 12-parameter, zero-required search tool with no output schema and no annotations, so the description needs to explain more. It omits how filters combine, what the response contains, and practical implications of defaults. The description is too sparse for the tool's complexity.

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 only 50%, and the description adds little beyond 'by locality and/or topic.' It does not clarify the distinction between query, scope, and tag, nor does it explain year, area bounds, or limit semantics. The description fails to compensate for the many undocumented parameters.

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 description clearly states the action ('Search') and resource ('public Oleba project/gallery realization content') and adds exclusions for generic service, landing, and price-list pages. It is specific enough to distinguish from content-type siblings, but it never explicitly differentiates from get_realization or search_site.

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?

It gives clear context for what this tool searches and explicitly excludes certain page types, which implies when not to use it. However, it does not name alternative tools or provide explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance relative to siblings.

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