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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/closed-world safety, but the description adds real behavior: results are "best first, at most ten," each section holds "every word," and the tool is confined to published docs. These ranking, limit, and matching-semantics details are not derivable from the annotations and materially affect how an agent interprets results.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the opening clause and every sentence adds value (scope, query shaping, return shape). The middle sentence is a dense run-on concatenating many result fields, which slightly harms parseability, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description must describe returns, and it does thoroughly: page, heading, topic, address, surrounding words, and total count. Scope, query semantics, and result ordering are all covered, so an agent has what it needs to call and interpret the tool.

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 baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond it by explaining AND-matching semantics ("every word must be in a section, whole or as part of a longer one") and prescribing the query style ("a few words the docs would use... not a question"). That is meaningful meaning the schema does not carry.

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 and resource ("Finds words in fivebar's own docs") and explicitly anchors itself against the sibling read_docs by describing itself as "the pages read_docs reads, as the docs' own search does." An agent can tell find-vs-read apart immediately.

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?

Clear context: this is the finder side of the read_docs pair, with an explicit scope exclusion ("reads fivebar's published docs alone, nothing of any site") and query-shaping guidance ("give a few words the docs would use... not a question"). It stops short of explicitly stating the routing rule (search when you don't know the page, read_docs once you do), leaving the alternative relationship implied.

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