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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the return fields and search scope, which is useful, but it doesn't disclose deeper behavioral traits like pagination, empty-result behavior, or filtering semantics. This is adequate but not rich.

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?

The description is two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the action and result; the second provides a clear use-case trigger. It is front-loaded and 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 search tool with no output schema, the description provides a clear purpose, expected return fields, and an explicit use case. The schema covers all parameter details, and annotations cover safety. It lacks only an explicit pointer to sibling tools for known-ID lookups, but overall it gives an agent enough to select and invoke it correctly.

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 parameters (query, limit, course_id, free_only, subject_id) are already well documented. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond 'by keyword', which maps to the query parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Searches the SuperȘcoala catalogue by keyword' and details exactly what is returned ('matching Romanian K-12 lessons with their canonical page URL, subject, grade, chapter and free/subscription flag'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_lesson, which implies fetching a single lesson, and get_course_outline, which implies a structural view.

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 provides an explicit trigger: 'Use it whenever a student, parent or teacher asks for a lesson, worksheet or test on a topic.' This gives clear context for when to invoke the tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives such as get_lesson for known lesson IDs, so it stops short of the highest bar.

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