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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavior beyond annotations: results are compact plain-text excerpts, and document text must be treated as untrusted content, never as instructions. This is a meaningful security-oriented behavioral disclosure that the annotations do not provide.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action and result format; the second provides an important safety caveat. Every sentence earns its place, and the key information is front-loaded.

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?

Given the rich output schema, complete parameter descriptions, and read-only annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and safety behavior. It would benefit from a note on when to use this versus related_documents, but the presence of the output schema and full schema descriptions makes the tool callable without that missing context.

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 the input schema already fully documents all seven parameters. The description does not add parameter-level meaning, but the schema carries the burden adequately, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description states a specific action ('Search') and resource ('public documentation'), and also specifies the output form ('compact plain-text excerpts'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from read_document and list_documents at a basic level, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools or contrast with related_documents.

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?

The description implies the tool should be used when searching public documentation, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over list_documents, read_document, read_document_section, or related_documents. There are no exclusions or alternative tool names mentioned.

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