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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered and the description is free to add value — which it does by disclosing the external doc source and that results come back as passages plus page links, information absent from any structured field. Minor gaps: no mention of behavior when nothing matches or of documentation coverage limits.

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 sentences: the trigger condition with illustrative examples comes first, the mechanism and return shape second. No preamble, no restatement of the title, nothing removable.

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 read tool with full schema coverage and annotations but no output schema, the description supplies the trigger, the data source, and the shape of results. Only the no-results/edge-case behavior is unaddressed — a small gap given everything else already provided.

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%, with both `query` ('The question or keywords, in the user's words') and `limit` (default 5, max 10) documented inline, so the baseline is 3. The description's example queries loosely illustrate how to phrase `query`, but it adds no constraint or format guidance beyond the schema.

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 (searches) and resource (documentation at flarewarden.com/docs) and even describes the return shape ('best-matching passages with links to their pages'). It does not differentiate from the plausible sibling explain_features, so an agent must still infer which of the two answers conceptual vs. procedural questions.

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?

'Use this when the user asks how to do something in FlareWarden' gives a clear trigger condition, reinforced by five concrete task examples (custom domain, Slack alerts, cron heartbeat, probe IPs, inviting a teammate). It stops short of naming alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, so there is no explicit boundary against explain_features.

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