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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It reveals that results are labeled by docs source, that current vs version-pinned judgments matter, and that responses must be grounded in returned passages with exact quoting and citation. That goes well beyond schema. It could add more on ordering, failure, or error behavior, but remains genuinely transparent.

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 front-loaded with the core definition, then each sentence adds a distinct useful behavior: result labelling, version preference, evidence-only answering, and exact quoting/citing with no wasted words.

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?

Given two simple params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers enough: returns passages and URLs, labels them by source, gives selection heuristics, and instructs evidence-specific answering. This is complete for an agent to invoke and use 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond full-text search, but the schema already says query is a search query and max_results allows default.

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 states a clear verb-resource pair: full-text search across all connected documentation sources, and it explicitly says it returns passages plus source URLs. This scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_issues (issues) and get_code_examples (code examples), even without naming them.

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 implies usage by instructing the agent to prefer current over version-pinned docs for requirements, defaults, etc., which points to when the tool's results are authoritative. However, it never explicitly states when to choose this tool over siblings such as ask_question or query_source, and it doesn't give when-not-to-use conditions.

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