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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the return shape ("best-matching articles with their paths"), which matters because there is no output schema. It still says nothing about result ranking, total counts, or behavior on empty queries.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler; the search scope is front-loaded and the follow-on tool pointer is placed last where it is most useful. Nothing to cut.

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 three-parameter read-only search with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return shape and the next step. Pagination/limit defaults and cross-language search semantics are left to the schema, which is acceptable.

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 query, limit and section are fully documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description adds no syntax guidance beyond those examples and its language enumeration omits python, the one enum value a searcher might miss.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ("Search DevDocs10 guides ... by keywords") and will be clearly separable from list_docs and get_doc. It even states what comes next ("read one with get_doc"), though it never explicitly contrasts itself with list_docs. Minor flaw: the parenthetical language list (Swift, JavaScript, CSS, HTML) omits python, which the section enum allows.

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?

Usage is implied by the keyword-search framing and by the explicit follow-on step "read one with get_doc", which shows the search-then-fetch workflow. However there is no statement of when to prefer this over list_docs, nor any constraint (e.g. that section may be omitted to search across languages).

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