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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds real context beyond them: it searches across linked Spaces and returns page excerpts with canonical URLs, and cannot modify documentation. The return shape is disclosed; pagination/result-limit behavior is not.

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 tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the trigger condition, followed by scope and return behavior. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 usefully explains that results are page excerpts with canonical URLs, and it disambiguates scope against private/space search. Only result limits or ranking behavior are left unspecified.

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% for the single query parameter and the schema itself already lists example topics (linked Spaces, Full Tree Documentation, Autopilot, API authentication, CLI imports). The description adds no syntax or constraint detail 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 and resource (searches first-party public DocuWriter documentation) and scopes it explicitly against the user's private Spaces. This cleanly separates it from siblings like search-space-documents, global-search, and search-documentation-mentions.

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 an explicit trigger ('when the user asks how DocuWriter.ai works or requests published product, API, or CLI instructions') and an explicit exclusion ('does not search the user's Spaces or private documentation'). It stops short of naming the sibling to route to instead, which would be needed for a 5.

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