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

Annotations already establish readOnly=true, destructive=false and a closed world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the exact return fields (slug, title, summary, category, URL) and the locale fallback behavior, which an agent would otherwise have to discover by calling it.

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 sentences, zero filler. The subject matter and the locale default are both front-loaded, and every clause carries information an agent would otherwise lack.

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 enumerates the returned fields, and it documents the locale default and options for all three parameters. It stops short of describing matching behavior (keyword vs semantic) or pagination, which would matter for a search tool with a limit parameter.

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 coverage is 67% and the required 'query' parameter has no schema description at all, so the description is the only hint that queries should be about hemp, CBD, regulation, nutrition or Gotland cultivation. The locale guidance repeats the schema's own enum list, and 'limit' is left entirely to the schema, so value added over structured fields is modest.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Search') against a clearly named resource (Helsama's knowledge base and blog) and enumerates the topical domain, so an agent knows exactly what corpus is queried. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like search_products or get_article to draw the boundary, so differentiation is inferred from the resource rather than stated.

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 only usage guidance is the locale default ('Swedish by default; pass locale for translations'), which is parameter-level rather than tool-selection guidance. Nothing says when to reach for this versus get_article, get_faq, get_facts, or search_products, leaving the choice to inference from names.

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