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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive; the description adds operational context: commands run inside a sandboxed virtual filesystem (rg, cat, head, tree, ls) and paths are documentation pages, not customer org data. It does not mention what output looks like, but the behavior it discloses goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 tight sentences. First names the tool action and mechanism; second gives usage guidance. No fluff.

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 single-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema and clear sibling distinction, this covers the essential selection and invocation guidance. It gives command examples GUIDES? Actually it gives commands in description: rg, cat, head, tree, ls. It addresses path namespace. Complete.

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 already fully describes the command parameter with examples Tags: 100% coverage, baseline 3. Description reinforces legal commands and path scope (`/guides/reminders.mdx`), adding beyond schema.

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 opens with a specific action ('Read or search') and a clear resource ('ClearPolicy documentation pages') plus the mechanism. It explicitly differentiates itself from search-docs, telling the agent exactly when to use this tool vs. its sibling, which satisfies sibling discrimination.

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?

States 'Prefer search-docs for conceptual questions; use this when you need exact page content, keyword/regex matches, or docs structure.' This is explicit when-to-use and when-not-to guidance with a named alternative. Nothing is left to inference.

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