search_source_pages

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile: read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that by specifying the search is literal rather than semantic/fuzzy, is limited to locally placed pages, and returns page hits rather than full page content.

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?

The definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately compact, though the extreme brevity leaves important parameter details unstated elsewhere in the definition.

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?

The presence of annotations and an output schema reduces what the description must cover. Still, for a tool with three parameters and zero schema description coverage, the description is incomplete because edition_ids and limit receive no explanation, and sibling alternatives are not addressed.

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 carries the burden of explaining parameters. It gives some meaning to query by calling it a literal Arabic search, but it does not explain edition_ids, its required status, or the limit parameter and its default.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: "search" over "source pages." It also narrows the operation to "literal Arabic" search and says it returns "page hits only," which distinguishes it from a content-retrieval sibling like get_source_page.

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 phrasing implies when this tool is appropriate: literal Arabic lookup across locally placed source pages. However, it does not explicitly compare against get_source_page or other siblings, nor does it state when not to use this search.

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