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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering side-effect safety. The description adds behavioral scope beyond annotations by specifying that the search covers all public pages and FAQs and that results are matching fragments with source URL and slug. This is useful, though it does not discuss ordering or result-size behavior beyond the schema's limita field.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler. The action and scope are front-loaded, the return format follows, and the usage guidance closes the description efficiently. Every sentence 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 simple two-parameter read-only search tool, the description covers the search scope, the return shape, and the starting-point use case. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit mention of fragments with URL and slug, and the schema handles parameter details. Nothing essential for calling the tool correctly is missing.

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 the baseline is 3; the schema already documents both parameters well. The description only adds the idea of a 'free question' ('întrebare liberă'), which reinforces the intrebare field but does little to clarify limita or add format details beyond the schema.

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 states a specific action ('Caută într-o întrebare liberă') and a clear resource ('toate paginile publice ClickPhone şi prin întrebările frecvente'). It also describes the return value (fragments with URL and slug), making the tool's purpose concrete. The phrase 'Începe de aici când nu ştii ce pagină îţi trebuie' differentiates it from more specific page-lookup siblings like clickphone_pagina.

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 gives an explicit usage condition: 'Începe de aici când nu ştii ce pagină îţi trebuie', which tells an agent to use this tool when the target page is unknown. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so the guidance is clear but not fully exclusive.

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