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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotation: it returns 'the most relevant documentation pages with their title, canonical URL, and a short matching excerpt,' clarifying the tool's output and behavior during invocation.

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 sentences, both information-dense. The primary purpose and usage condition are front-loaded, followed by a succinct return-value description. No filler or redundancy.

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 simple read-only search tool with two well-documented parameters specificed in the schema and no output schema, the description covers the key decision context (when to invoke), the behavior, and the return shape. Nothing material is missing for an agent to use it correctly.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents 'query' and 'max_results'. The description does not add parameter-level detail, but it does not need to—the baseline of 3 applies here because the schema already carries the semantic weight.

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 verb and resource: 'Search the OpenClip product documentation.' It immediately distinguishes this tool from all sibling tools (none of which are documentation-related) and states exactly what it does in one clear sentence.

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 gives an explicit invocation condition: 'Call this before answering questions about OpenClip features... when the answer is not already present in the conversation.' This tells the agent both when to use the tool and when not to, which is strong usage guidance for a retrieval tool.

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