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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by explaining the return format (contextual content with titles and links) and how to extend results to full pages via the sibling tool. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage guidance, then the explicit alternative. Every sentence serves a distinct function with no redundancy.

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 tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers what it does, when to use it, what it returns, and how to follow up for full content. Nothing necessary for correct invocation is missing.

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 single parameter 'query' is fully described in the schema with 100% coverage, so the schema carries the load. The description reinforces the query semantics by listing what kinds of content the search covers, but doesn't need to add syntax or format details for a simple string parameter.

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 states the tool searches across the Honeydew Documentation knowledge base for relevant information, code examples, API references, and guides. It identifies the resource, the action, and the scope, and implicitly differentiates itself from the filesystem sibling tool by focusing on search results.

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 says when to use this tool (answer questions, find docs, understand features, locate implementation details) and when to use the alternative (query_docs_filesystem_honeydew_documentation for full page content), including exact follow-up commands and the .mdx path extension.

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