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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it discloses that search returns only titles and direct links, not full content, and explains how to retrieve full content via a sibling tool. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent predict the output format.

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 a single paragraph but is well-structured: it opens with the purpose, then usage guidance, then what the search returns, and finally a pointer to the sibling tool. It is slightly long but every sentence adds value, and the critical usage guidance is front-loaded. It is not overly verbose.

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 search tool with simple parameters and clear annotations, the description is complete: it states what the tool does, when to use it, what it returns, and how to proceed for full content. It does not describe pagination or result limits, but those are minor and not essential for correct invocation. The output format (titles and links) is sufficient.

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% (both query and version are described in the schema). The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description's mention of the .mdx suffix is not about parameters but about follow-up actions, which is already covered elsewhere.

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 states a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('Cerebrium knowledge base'), and clearly enumerates what it finds (information, code examples, API references, guides). It explicitly differentiates from the sibling query_docs_filesystem by noting that search returns links and not full content, so an agent can immediately distinguish the two tools.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('when you need to answer questions about Cerebrium...') and provides a concrete alternative for full content (use query_docs_filesystem to head/cat the page). It even explains the .mdx path convention, leaving no ambiguity about when to switch tools.

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