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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds genuine value by disclosing the result shape (id, title, URL, matching line) and ordering ('best first'). It does not explain how relevance is ranked or what an empty result set looks like, which are the remaining gaps.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the return contract, then the next-step handoff. No filler, and every sentence carries information the agent needs.

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 correctly compensates by naming the returned fields and their order, which is what an agent needs to chain into `fetch`. Minor omissions remain: no mention of no-match behavior or total-result awareness, but for a two-parameter read tool this is close to complete.

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 coverage is 100%, with both `query` and `limit` fully documented including default and maximum, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema — it says nothing about query syntax, phrase handling, or how `limit` interacts with ranking.

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 ('Find documentation pages about a subject') and immediately distinguishes itself from its sibling by noting the id is passed to `fetch` to read a page. An agent can tell search vs. fetch apart without opening 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 closing sentence gives an explicit workflow handoff — use `search` to locate, then `fetch` with the returned id — which effectively routes the agent to the sibling. It stops short of stating when NOT to use this tool (e.g., when you already have a page id, go straight to `fetch`), so it is clear context without explicit exclusions.

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