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

Adds real value beyond the annotations by disclosing that no authentication is required and that the corpus is public — something readOnlyHint/openWorldHint do not convey. However, it says nothing about result ordering, pagination, or behavior when nothing matches, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps for a search tool.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what it does, then return shape, then when to use it, then the auth fact. Zero filler.

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 two-parameter read-only search with a fully described schema and annotations, this covers purpose, trigger conditions, return fields, and access requirements. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented inline, so the schema carries the load. The description adds no syntax, ranking, or limit guidance beyond what is already structured; 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 (search ZeroWidth product documentation) and scopes the corpus precisely — public product docs, not workspace content — which separates it from siblings like search_workspace, workbench_kb_search, and compass_pages_search without opening any 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?

Explicitly enumerates the triggering conditions: questions about a named ZeroWidth product, API behavior, or policy. It never names an alternative tool or a when-not-to-use case, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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