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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds real behavioral context on top: excerpts are truncated at 300 characters, browsing without q is supported, and paging is driven by next_offset. It doesn't state result ordering or the shape of the pagination envelope, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 compact sentences with the resource and return payload front-loaded, followed by usage directives. No repetition of the schema, no filler, and every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 read-only search tool with no output schema and four flat parameters, the description covers return fields, truncation, browse mode, and the handoff to read_information. Ordering of results and the pagination token's exact field name are left implied, which is a small residual gap.

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 only 25% (api_key alone is documented), so the description must carry more weight. It clarifies q's semantics (omitting it browses rather than errors) and points at pagination.next_offset, but never explains the limit ceiling of 100 or how offset relates to the returned token. That is partial compensation, landing at the adequate baseline.

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 (Search) and resource (La Réunion records), then enumerates exactly what comes back: IDs, titles, versions, sources, and excerpts capped at 300 characters. It also distinguishes itself from read_information by scoping that sibling to full text, so an agent can pick between them without opening either schema.

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?

Gives explicit operational conditions: omit q to browse the full corpus, follow pagination.next_offset to page, and use read_information instead when full text is needed. The alternative and the condition that selects it are both named rather than left to inference.

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