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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, and the description's 'read-only' simply restates that. The only extra signal is that results are 'public information documents', which is thin for a search tool whose matching behavior, coverage and result count are undisclosed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of the missing usage and parameter detail noted elsewhere.

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, and the annotations cover the safety profile. What remains missing is query semantics and differentiation from the price-specific siblings, leaving the definition just barely adequate for a one-parameter 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?

The single 'query' parameter has 0% schema description coverage and the description says nothing about it — no hint about expected syntax, whether it is a keyword or natural-language query, or how matching works. With one undocumented required parameter, the description fails to compensate for the schema 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?

The verb 'Find' plus the resource 'TEHET price and public information documents' states a recognizable purpose. However, it does not differentiate this tool from siblings like 'fetch' or the specific price getters (get_fuel_prices, get_green_card_price), so an agent cannot tell from the description alone when a generic search beats a targeted getter.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternatives. With 'fetch' and several targeted price getters among its siblings, the absence of any routing rule ('use this for free-text lookups; use get_fuel_prices for a specific series') leaves selection entirely to inference.

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