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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the description's "read-only" adds nothing new and is essentially a restatement. Beyond that it discloses nothing about result volume, ranking, or query behavior, leaving the behavioral burden unmet for an open-world search.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Brevity is appropriate, though it shades into under-specification for a tool with this many siblings.

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 described. However, with an undocumented query parameter and no routing guidance against five siblings, the definition is only minimally sufficient for an open-world search tool.

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% and the single "query" parameter is documented only by min/max length. The description says nothing about what the query matches against, wildcarding, or expected syntax, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

Names a verb ("Find") and a resource ("TEHET price and public information documents"), so the general shape is inferable, but "TEHET" is undefined and the description does nothing to separate it from the sibling "fetch" or the get_* price tools. An agent must guess how a document search differs from a direct price lookup.

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 the five siblings, particularly "fetch", which sounds functionally overlapping. No preconditions or exclusions are given; usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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