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

Annotations already declare it read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context annotations don't: the subject matter covered and the shape of the results (titles, URLs, dates, summaries, language versions), which matters because no output schema exists.

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 front-loaded sentences: the search action and domain first, the return shape second. No redundant or filler content.

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 no output schema, the description usefully summarizes the return fields and language variants, and the parameters are fully documented in the schema. Only the absence of explicit sibling routing keeps it from 5.

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 three parameters are documented in the schema, and the description merely restates the language dimension. Baseline 3 applies; nothing beyond the schema is added.

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 (full-text search) and resource (supplemental.pl knowledge articles) with the topical domain (EU/PL food law) enumerated, so an agent can see it differs from get_article and search_claims_foodlaw. It does not explicitly name the alternatives it is not, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 implies discovery/search usage through 'Full-text search,' and the contrast with get_article is inferable, but it never says when to choose this over search_claims_foodlaw or when to fetch a specific article instead. Usage is left to inference.

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