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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The only added behavioral claim, that the interface is not remounted, is a UI-state preservation detail of questionable relevance to an agent and is too vague to act on.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no padding, so it is concise, but it is concise by virtue of saying almost nothing rather than by editing out fat. Length is appropriate for a blurb, not for a search tool with a nested filter schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but a 6-parameter tool with a nested filter object, pagination, a language const, and a patterned explorer_id gets no coverage at all. The description leaves the agent unequipped to call this tool 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?

Six parameters with 0% schema description coverage, including a nested FilmFilters object with ten fields and pagination bounds, and the description documents none of them. The agent gets no help on query, page, limit, language, explorer_id, or any filter semantics.

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 restates the name generically ('Search from the explorer') and leans on an opaque UI concept ('remounting its interface') rather than stating what resource is searched. With siblings like search, search_documentaries, and catalogue_film, an agent cannot tell what corpus this hits or how it differs from those tools.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus search or the catalogue_* siblings, no mention of explorer_id being the likely trigger for this call, and no exclusions. 'From the explorer' hints at a context but gives the agent nothing actionable.

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