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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and closed-world behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the best match is returned in full while other matches come back as excerpts, which is important since there is no output schema.

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 operative instructions are front-loaded well, but the middle sentence is a long marketing-style enumeration of the product and its feature areas that is closer to domain padding than call-critical information. Every part is defensible, yet the description is noticeably longer than needed to select and invoke the tool.

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 usefully discloses the return shape (full best match plus openable excerpts) and covers the audience distinction and topical scope. An agent has enough to call it correctly; only the lack of guidance on browsing alternatives leaves a small gap.

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 question, audience, and limit are all already documented with examples, enum meanings, and defaults. The description only echoes the plain-words guidance for the question parameter and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Search') and resource ('Axons Mobility's public knowledge base') and enumerates the topical coverage, so an agent knows exactly what corpus is behind it. It also names the sibling read_help_page and the relationship between them, which distinguishes it from list_help_topics without opening a schema.

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?

'Ask in plain words' tells the agent how to phrase input, and quoting read_help_page as the way to open excerpts establishes a clear follow-up workflow. It lacks an explicit when-not clause or a pointer to list_help_topics for browsing, so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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