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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world reads, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the return shape ('contextual content with titles and direct links') and the follow-up workflow for retrieving full pages, though it says nothing about result limits, ranking, or empty-result behavior.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by usage conditions, return shape, and cross-tool guidance in a logical order. The parenthetical example of paths and head/cat is longer than strictly necessary but is functional, not filler.

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 one-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, selection criteria, return content, and the recommended follow-up path to the sibling tool. Only marginal gaps remain (pagination, ranking, or zero-result guidance), which are not critical for correct invocation.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries the parameter contract and the baseline is 3. The description implies a natural-language query but adds no syntax, filtering, or format guidance beyond what the schema states.

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 across the Goldsky knowledge base') and enumerates the content types returned (code examples, API references, guides). It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling query_docs_filesystem_goldsky by positioning search as discovery versus full-page reading.

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 when-to-use conditions ('answer questions about Goldsky, find specific documentation, understand how features work, locate implementation details') and names the alternative tool with the exact condition that selects it and the follow-up mechanics (.mdx append plus head/cat). Nothing is left to inference.

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