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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, and the description reinforces rather than contradicts this ('Read-only; it never changes the studio'). Beyond annotations it discloses return shapes per mode: a table of contents, best-matching articles with a snippet and matching section, or one article as full Markdown, plus the doc:<slug> cross-link convention.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and scope, then the three calling modes, then the doc:<slug> convention, then the usage trigger. It is a single dense paragraph with no filler sentences; every clause carries information the agent needs.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so for each mode (TOC, snippet plus section, full Markdown, cross-link format). Combined with a fully documented 4-parameter schema and read-only annotations, nothing an agent needs to call this correctly 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%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description adds real semantics: it explains that `article` must be a slug obtained from the contents or a search result, and that omitting all parameters yields the table of contents rather than an error. That workflow-level meaning is not visible in the 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?

Specific verb pair (search and read) plus a named resource (genMC knowledge base) with an enumerated scope of topics (skins, builds, agents and pairing, accounts, export, shortcuts, troubleshooting). This is clearly distinct from the sibling tools genmc_call/genmc_pair/genmc_status, which perform actions rather than answer questions.

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?

It gives a concrete trigger ('when you are unsure how a feature works, what a label in the studio means, or how to explain something to the user') and explicitly routes between the three calling modes (no args, query, article). It does not name the sibling tools or say when to prefer genmc_call/genmc_status over consulting the docs, so it falls short of a full 5.

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