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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: it discloses the return payload (canonical URLs, titles, excerpts, match diagnostics, machine-readable representation URLs) and that ranking is locality-aware — information the agent cannot get anywhere else since there is no output schema.

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 tightly written sentences with zero filler; the search scope and the ranking approach are front-loaded, and the return payload follows immediately. Every clause earns its place.

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 three-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what corpus is searched, how results are ranked, and what the results contain. The remaining gap is the undocumented limit/content_type semantics, which belong more to the schema than the prose.

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 33%: query is documented, but limit and content_type carry no schema descriptions. The description adds nothing about these parameters — it does not explain the 1-10 limit, the default of 5, or the meaning of the any/page/post enum, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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) and resource (published public WordPress pages/posts on oleba.pl) with a clear scope constraint (public content only). It distinguishes itself from mutating siblings like get_content by being a search entry point, but never names which sibling to prefer when a direct lookup would work.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no alternatives are named, despite 11 siblings including the obviously competing ask_oleba, get_content and list_services. The agent must infer that this is the free-text entry point while the others are direct-lookup tools.

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