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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful behavioral context by clarifying that the tool searches documentation rather than organization data, and reinforces the read-only nature by pointing to list/get tools for data retrieval. It doesn't contradict 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 two sentences with zero filler. The first sentence states the purpose and scope; the second gives usage guidelines and exclusions. It's front-loaded and efficiently uses every word.

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 search tool with only two parameters, full schema coverage, and an output schema present, the description covers the essential usage context (when to use, when not to use). It doesn't need to explain return values (output schema exists) or parameter details (schema covers them). Nothing essential 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 well-described in the schema (query with examples, language with code examples). The description text itself doesn't add extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given the high coverage. The baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a clear verb (Search) and resource (ClearPolicy customer documentation) with specific content types (how-tos, guides, API reference). It also differentiates from siblings by explicitly excluding organization-specific data, which sets it apart from list/get tools. The phrase 'Use this for "how do I…" questions' further pins down its purpose.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('how do I…' questions with examples) and when-not-to-use guidance ('Do not use this for organization-specific data — use list/get tools instead'). It names the alternative category (list/get tools) even though it doesn't name specific siblings, which is sufficient for an agent to route correctly.

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