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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/destructiveHint/openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely non-schema context: no API key required, docs are regenerated on every code change (freshness), and results are page paths rather than content. It stops short of describing ranking/pagination behavior, so not a full 5.

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?

Three sentences, each doing distinct work: what it searches, when to use it, and what to do with the result. No redundancy and the key scoping/routing information 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?

For a two-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description supplies everything needed: the retrieval model, the auth requirement, the freshness guarantee, the return shape (page paths), and the natural next call. Nothing required to invoke it 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% and both parameters (query, limit) are documented in the schema, so the description need not repeat them. It adds only the notion that matching is 'full-text' across the whole docs corpus, which is marginal value over the schema baseline.

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 ('Full-text search across the Fictura docs') plus result shape ('grouped by page'). It also distinguishes itself from the adjacent list_docs/read_doc pair by noting it returns page paths that you then feed to read_doc.

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?

Explicit when-to-use: 'Use this before answering any how do I… question' about a named set of domains (SDK, API, paywalls, entitlements, links, webhooks), with a rationale ('docs are the source of truth'). It also names the follow-up tool and why you'd use it, so the routing decision is fully specified.

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