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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and idempotent, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns passages with URLs, and crucially, it clarifies that an empty result is not necessarily a failure and that a note field distinguishes the cases. This goes beyond the schema and 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 three sentences with no filler: it states the action, explains the purpose, and addresses the empty-result edge case. Every sentence adds information and the most important guidance is front-loaded.

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 only two parameters, a high-coverage schema, an output schema, and annotations for read-only and idempotent behavior, the description provides everything an agent needs to call this tool correctly. It even resolves a subtle ambiguity about empty results that would otherwise be easy to misread.

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 parameter descriptions already fully document both 'query' and 'locale'. The description provides an example query but does not add extra semantic explanation beyond what the schema already gives, so the baseline score 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 clearly states a specific verb ('Searches'), a resource ('the public asksteps website'), and the output ('matching passages with their URLs'). It also provides the intended use cases, making it obvious this is a documentation-search tool rather than a CRUD operation on forms or funnels.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use it: to quote or cite what the product does and to check whether a feature exists. It also explains how to interpret an empty result, saying it likely means the feature is absent rather than that the search failed, which is crucial practical guidance.

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