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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations by disclosing the semantic-index staleness caveat and the meta.semanticAvailable=false fallback signal the agent should inspect. It also sets expectations that no synthesized answer is returned, which prevents misuse of results.

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 short sentences, each carrying distinct operational value: what it searches, the required follow-up action, the degradation caveat, and the no-answer expectation. Purpose is front-loaded and nothing is padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape detail is unnecessary, and the description still flags the meta.semanticAvailable field that matters for interpreting results. The remaining gap is the undocumented handbookId and limit parameters in a 0%-coverage schema.

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%, so the description must compensate: it does explain that the query string is matched by keyword, title and semantics. However, handbookId (a 24-hex id scoping the search) and limit (1-50) are never described, leaving two of three parameters to be inferred from constraints alone.

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 (find) and resource (policies/handbooks) plus the retrieval mechanisms (keyword, title, semantic matching). It implicitly separates this from get_page by casting get_page as the follow-up step, though it never contrasts itself with list_handbooks for browsing.

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?

"Read relevant pages with get_page before answering, and cite their URLs" gives a clear downstream workflow and a usage obligation. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use case (e.g., browsing all handbooks via list_handbooks), so the guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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