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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and closed-world scope, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it describes the shape of the response (contextual content with titles and direct links) and documents the follow-up workflow for retrieving full page bodies. It stops short of stating result-count limits or ranking behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then usage conditions, then the cross-tool handoff — a sensible ordering. The parenthetical `.mdx` example is long but genuinely operational, so it earns its place; otherwise the prose is tight with little redundancy.

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?

For a one-parameter search tool whose safety profile is fully annotated and which has no output schema, the description covers purpose, when to call it, what comes back, and how to escalate to full content. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly and follow up is missing.

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?

There is a single required parameter and the schema already describes it at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description gives no query syntax, phrasing, or keyword guidance that would help an agent craft a better search string, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema.

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 and resource ('Search across the Ankra knowledge base') and enumerates the content types it covers (information, code examples, API references, guides). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling query_docs_filesystem tool, so an agent can route between the two without opening a 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?

Explicitly lists the triggering situations — answering questions about Ankra, finding docs, understanding features, locating implementation details — and then names the alternative tool and the condition that selects it (needing full page content). The handoff instruction includes the concrete `.mdx` path convention, leaving nothing to inference.

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