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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/closed-world, so the bar is lower; the description adds real value with the 20-records-per-page cap, the bounded query length, and the explicit statement that results are records rather than generated prose. It still omits pagination exhaustion behavior and total-count semantics.

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 tight sentences; scope and output nature are front-loaded before the routing hint. The '(1–80 characters)' parenthetical is mildly redundant with the schema's maxLength but earns its place by describing the query's alias nature.

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 an output schema present, return-value detail is unnecessary, and the description still communicates page size and result nature. For a 7-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, the enum-bearing parameters (language, selected, product) remain the only meaningful 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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It partially does: it characterizes q (bilingual keyword aliases, bounded length), notes that product/content_type/category filters apply, and implies page size, but leaves language, selected, and the enum values themselves unexplained.

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) over named resources (published titles, summaries, owned workflow text) and scopes it with a negative ('not a generated answer or live-internet search'). This lets an agent distinguish it from catch-all search siblings, though it does not differentiate it from get_catalog/get_workflows by name.

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?

Explicitly names the follow-up alternative ('Use get_item to inspect conditions, evidence and citation URLs') and rules out uses (generated answers, live internet). It gives clear context and one alternative, but does not say when to prefer this over other retrieval siblings like get_latest or get_workflows.

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