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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is already carried. The description adds real context beyond that: results include document URLs, and there is a distinct list-all mode when query is omitted. It stops short of noting result limits or pagination, so it is not a 5.

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 tight sentences with no filler; the content scope is front-loaded and the listing mode plus sibling routing follow naturally. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully discloses that matches come with URLs, and it covers the listing fallback. Minor gaps remain around result volume/pagination, but the essentials for correct invocation are present.

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 both "query" (free-text, omit to list all) and "locale" (en/es, default en) are already documented in the schema. The description's note about omitting query largely duplicates the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (Searches) and resource (curated documentation), and enumerates the covered content (whitepapers, Scrypto/developer guides, node & validator guides, DeFi concepts). It also distinguishes itself from read_radix_doc, which retrieves full content rather than search matches.

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 explicit operating conditions: call without "query" to enumerate all documents, and route to read_radix_doc to fetch full content. The when-to-use boundary against the sibling is stated, not inferred.

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