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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so credit goes to what is added: no sign-in required, and that results are relevance-ranked sections carrying a `Source:` page URL. That tells the agent about auth preconditions and the shape of results, which annotations do not.

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?

Four short sentences, each with a distinct job: what it searches, when to call it, what it returns, and what to do next. No repetition of the title, no filler, and the routing pointer is placed immediately after the scope statement.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by stating that results are top sections with their `Source:` URL — the exact thing an agent needs to decide whether to escalate to read_docs_page. With only two simple, fully documented parameters and full annotation coverage, nothing material 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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already labels `query` as "What you want to do, in plain words" and `limit` as "Number of results. Default 5." The description adds no further syntax, format, or interpretation guidance, so the schema does the heavy lifting — baseline 3.

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?

Specific verb plus resource ("Search the Dodo Payments guides") with an enumeration of covered topics — integration steps, webhooks, checkout, subscriptions, billing concepts, framework adapters. It also explicitly separates itself from read_docs_page ("read a full page with read_docs_page"), so an agent can route between the two without inspecting schemas.

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?

Gives a clear trigger ("Call it before you write integration code") and names the follow-on alternative for full-page content. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance or a statement about how it differs from the similarly named `search` sibling, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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