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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It makes clear this is a read-only search operation, discloses the locality-aware relevance behavior, and lists the response contents. It does not mention rate limits or authentication, but nothing suggests side effects.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the search action and target resource, with return values listed at the end. There is no filler or redundant repetition of schema details.

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 simple search tool it covers the main scope and return items despite the absence of an output schema. However, with no annotations, limited parameter coverage, and no usage exclusions, an agent still has to infer some call decisions and sibling distinctions.

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%: only 'query' is explained, while limit and content_type have no descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail and does not compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 action ('Search') on a specific resource ('published public WordPress pages/posts on oleba.pl') and lists what it returns. This clearly identifies it as the site-search tool and distinguishes it from the get_* siblings and ask_oleba.

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 intended use is implied by the search verb and the reference to published public content, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance and does not name alternatives. An agent must infer how this differs from get_content or ask_oleba.

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