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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by scoping the corpus to "published" documentation and clarifying that no synthesized/generated advice is produced. It omits pagination behavior, which the cursor parameter implies exists.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core action and corpus scope front-loaded and the behavioral boundary second. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is unnecessary, and annotations cover the safety profile. The main remaining gap is paging semantics (how cursor and limit interact), which neither the description nor the schema explains.

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 description coverage is only 33% (only query is documented), so the description carries the compensating burden but adds nothing about limit or cursor. The cursor/pagination parameter in particular is undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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 (Search) and resource (Hyperwave's published wavetable documentation) plus the return shape (source URLs and excerpts). It does not explicitly name or contrast with the sibling get_document, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

"Retrieval only; no generated advice" draws a behavioral boundary, and the tool's retrieval role implies a search-then-fetch flow with get_document, but that workflow is never stated and no when-not-to-use condition is given.

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