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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds value beyond them by disclosing the return shape (contextual content with titles and direct links) and the downstream path-mangling rule (append `.mdx`). It does not mention result count limits or pagination, keeping it short of 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?

Purpose and usage come first, with the sibling-tool handoff at the end where it belongs. The parenthetical `head -200 /some/page.mdx` example is a bit verbose but earns its place by removing an inference the agent would otherwise have to make.

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 compensates by describing what a result contains (contextual content, titles, links) and how to get full page bodies. Complete enough to invoke correctly; only minor gaps around result volume and version-filter behavior remain.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in structured data. The description adds nothing about how to phrase the query or what the `version` filter accepts beyond the schema's example, so the baseline of 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 and resource ('Search across the Cerebrium knowledge base') plus the content types covered (code examples, API references, guides). It also explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling query_docs_filesystem tool, so an agent can route correctly 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use conditions ('answer questions about Cerebrium, find specific documentation, understand how features work') and a clear escalation path: use query_docs_filesystem to head/cat the page when full content is needed. It even supplies the concrete `.mdx` path convention for that handoff.

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