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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: it enumerates the four fields returned per match and documents the URL convention (/docs/api-reference/{operationId}) with an explicit prohibition on guessing, which shapes downstream agent behavior.

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 short sentences: purpose, return shape, then the URL caution. Front-loaded with the core action and no filler. Every sentence contributes information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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?

A single read-only parameter tool with no output schema; the description supplies the return fields itself and adds the reference-page convention. Nothing needed 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 0% for the single 'query' parameter, so the description must carry the load. It does: it explains the parameter should be words drawn from the task or the resource name, which tells the agent what to put in the string rather than leaving it to the bare minLength:2 constraint.

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: 'Search the published OpenAPI documents'. The return fields (method, path, operation id, reference page) further pin down what the tool yields. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like find_surface or list_surfaces, so an agent must infer the boundary from naming.

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?

'Search ... by words from the task or the resource' implies when to reach for it, and the 'never guess those URLs' warning is a concrete usage constraint. But there is no explicit when-not guidance and no sibling is named as the alternative for lookup-by-path or enumeration cases.

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