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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the useful fact that search spans two distinct content types (blog articles and how-to-say pages), but says nothing about matching behavior (substring vs full-text), result ordering, or result volume.

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 compact sentence with the verb front-loaded and no filler. It could have added one clause about return behavior without becoming bloated, but there is nothing to trim.

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 one-required-parameter, read-only search tool with full schema coverage, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description covers what is searched and where. Missing details on result format and ranking are acceptable here since the output schema is absent and the operation is low-risk.

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% and the single query parameter already has an example («тоны», «HSK 4»), so the schema carries the burden. The description's 'word or phrase' wording adds mild signal about acceptable query granularity, but nothing about length limits or special characters beyond what the schema states.

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 verb (searches for a word or phrase) and specific resources (pandawed.ru blog articles and «Как будет … по-китайски» pages), which is clearer than the bare name. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as how_to_say or list_articles, though the cross-content scope hints at the difference.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this is the tool for keyword lookup across site content, but there is no explicit 'use this when…' or 'for exact phrase pages use how_to_say instead' guidance. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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