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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description contributes the return shape ("matching paths and excerpts"), which is additive, but says nothing about result limits, ranking, or pagination behavior.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the return behavior in the second. The long topic enumeration is bulky but serves routing, so it earns its place; nothing is redundant.

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 one-parameter, read-only search with no output schema, the description covers what is searched and what comes back, which is sufficient to call it correctly. The only meaningful omission is disambiguation from the overlapping reference-search siblings.

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% for the single `query` parameter, and the description adds no constraint, format, or example beyond what the schema already states ("What the merchant wants to do or know, in a few words"). Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the semantics.

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 ("Fudge's reference articles") and enumerates the covered topic domains, which lets an agent recognize it as the docs/reference search tool rather than a file or catalog search. It stops short of distinguishing itself from the similarly named sibling search_design_references or get_design_guide.

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 never states when to reach for this tool over search_design_references, get_design_guide, or find_context, nor any prerequisites. Usage is only inferable from the topic list; there are no explicit when/when-not cues.

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