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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so safety is covered by structured data. The description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing the return shape (titles, dates, summaries, links) and the full-text handoff, though it says nothing about pagination or result ordering.

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 sentences, both load-bearing: the first defines scope and domain, the second defines the return shape and the delegation path. Front-loaded with the core purpose and no filler.

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 no output schema, the description usefully compensates by listing what results contain, and all parameters are schema-documented. It is nearly complete for a search tool; only pagination/ordering behavior and guidance on combining filters remain unstated.

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 100% and all four parameters (type, limit, query, language) are documented in-schema with defaults, ranges, and enum meanings. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 a clearly scoped resource (articles and news published by EKO-IKSI clinic), and enumerates the topical domains covered. It also explicitly separates itself from the read_article sibling, so an agent can route without inspecting 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?

The description names the alternative and the condition that selects it: use read_article for the full text, implying this tool is for discovery. It gives clear context but no explicit exclusions against the other siblings (search_prices, clinic_information), so it falls short of a full when/when-not statement.

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