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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral detail by specifying the return content (exact selectors and citation URLs), but it does not disclose other relevant behavior such as pagination behavior with the limit parameter or any absence guarantees if the search fails.

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 two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action, states the target resource, and then specifies the return value. Every word earns its place.

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 the simplicity of the tool, the rich annotations, and the straightforward schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose and output format, and safety is already covered by annotations. The only minor gap is lack of guidance on limit usage or result shape beyond selectors and citations, but the description is sufficient for a search tool of this complexity.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage and the description does not meaningfully compensate. The term 'query' is implied by 'Search', but the description does not explain the meaning of the required query parameter, how the limit parameter affects results, or how queries should be formulated. With two parameters and no schema descriptions, more parameter guidance is needed.

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 specific verb ('Search'), a clear resource ('current Empryo documentation'), and the output ('exact page and section selectors and citation URLs'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_docs and read_docs, which would list or read documentation content rather than search it.

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 makes it clear that this tool is for searching current documentation, which implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives such as list_docs or read_docs, nor does it state conditions for when to prefer one over the other. The usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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