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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed world), and the description adds real context on top: the return fields (title, section, snippet, resource_uri, relevance_score), the round-trip fetch pattern, and the token-cost tradeoff between snippet search and single-document retrieval. It does not discuss ranking or pagination behavior, which keeps it below 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the search scope, then return fields, then the follow-up fetch pattern. Dense and mostly earned, though the nested parentheticals make it slightly heavy for what it conveys.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the result fields and the resource_uri fetch path. Combined with the fully documented schema, an agent has what it needs, with only result ordering and result-set sizing left implicit.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds workflow meaning: resource_uri may be fed from a prior search result or a list_docs_index id, and doing so returns the full body with query ignored. That explains how the two parameters interact rather than restating their definitions.

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 and resource set (search Kollus guides, OpenAPI specs, sample code, error-code dictionary by keyword query) and lists the exact result fields. It also distinguishes itself from list_docs_index by describing the two-step search-then-fetch flow, so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly states the second mode: when the document is already identified, pass resource_uri (or a list_docs_index id) instead of doing a keyword search, and notes that this avoids pulling 20 snippets. It lacks a clear when-not-to-use statement versus browsing tools, but the mode selection guidance is concrete.

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