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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining that search returns contextual content with titles and direct links, and that it does not return full page content, steering the agent to the sibling tool when needed.

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 description is compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, the second gives usage guidance, and the third provides a concrete handoff to the sibling tool. The .mdx example is useful and earns its place.

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?

Given the simple two-parameter schema and existing annotations, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. It compensates for the lack of an output schema by describing the return format and by explaining how to get full documentation content elsewhere.

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?

The input schema already documents both parameters fully with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to repeat parameter details. The description adds no significant parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage.

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 clearly identifies a search operation over the Cerebrium knowledge base, lists the kinds of information it finds, and distinguishes it from the docs-filesystem sibling. The verb and resource are specific, so an agent can understand what the tool does without opening the 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 description provides explicit when-to-use conditions such as answering questions, finding documentation, understanding features, and locating implementation details. It also gives a clear alternative for full page content, naming query_docs_filesystem_cerebrium and providing a concrete example with the .mdx path convention.

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