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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful detail that results include URLs and descriptions (relevant since there is no output schema), but says nothing about ranking quality, result truncation, or pagination.

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, no filler, with the return content stated first and the routing hint second. Every clause 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?

For a two-parameter search tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description covers purpose, return shape, and invocation ordering. Only minor gaps remain (result limits/truncation behavior, what to do with the returned URLs).

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 and limit documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax, format, or query-construction guidance beyond what the schema already provides, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource (search the Flowie Exchange API documentation) plus what is returned (relevant pages with URLs and descriptions). It is clearly distinguishable from docs_read_page and docs_list_endpoints by intent, though it does not name those siblings explicitly.

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 first when you need to find where something is documented" gives explicit ordering guidance relative to the other docs tools, implying docs_read_page follows. It stops short of stating when not to use it or naming the alternative tools directly.

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