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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so safety behavior is well covered. The description adds useful return context: matching Markdown excerpts with page paths, plus the next step of using docs_read for a full page. It does not discuss ranking, result limits, or indexing freshness, which are minor gaps for a search tool.

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 compact sentences are front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return behavior and guidance. Every sentence adds distinct value: scope, output/next step, and usage advice.

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 simple search tool with one fully documented parameter and rich annotations, the description supplies the remaining needed context: what corpus is searched, what is returned, and how to follow up with docs_read. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly appears to be 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 query parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already carries the parameter documentation, including a plain-language example. The description does not add meaning about query syntax or search behavior beyond what the schema provides, so 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 resource (Cactal product documentation) with concrete content domains: concepts, guides, agent workflows, platform limits, and API reference. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool docs_read by explaining that search returns excerpts while full pages are read with the docs read operation.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use guidance: consult docs before non-trivial or unfamiliar work such as source-code editing, publishing, or CMS schema changes. It also names the related alternative, docs_read, for reading full pages after searching. It does not state explicit exclusions or when-not-to-use cases, but the practical context is clear.

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