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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds genuine scope information — only reviewed/published documentation is indexed, so drafts and unreviewed pages will not appear — but says nothing about match semantics, ranking, truncation, or how the limit is applied.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy, which is well structured. Its brevity is efficient rather than padded, though the same one sentence could have absorbed a clause on matching or sibling routing without becoming bloated.

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 two-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description omits everything an agent needs beyond the verb: result shape, ranking or relevance behavior, empty-result handling, and how it relates to the two sibling documentation tools. The annotations cover safety but not the search semantics.

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 0% for both parameters, so the description carries the full burden and adds essentially nothing: it does not explain whether 'query' is keyword, phrase, or full-text, how matching works, what a limit of 10 actually bounds, or what happens with zero hits.

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 names a specific verb ('Search') and a specific resource ('the reviewed index of published EvalGate documentation'), and the qualifier 'reviewed/published' scopes exactly which content is searchable. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from docs_get or docs_list beyond the implicit search-vs-get-vs-list contrast.

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?

There is no statement about when to use this tool versus docs_get or docs_list, and no exclusions or prerequisites. An agent must infer the split from the sibling names alone, which is thin guidance for three overlapping documentation tools.

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