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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the return shape (contextual content with titles and direct page links) and the path convention for deepening a search hit. It stops short of anything about result limits, ranking, or pagination, which keeps it off 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?

The purpose and use cases are front-loaded in the first two sentences, and the sibling handoff comes last where an agent needs it. The parenthetical `.mdx` example is slightly wordy but earns its place because it prevents an otherwise likely failure on the follow-up read.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing returns — and it does, explaining that results are contextual content with titles and direct links. Combined with explicit sibling routing and the follow-up read recipe, an agent has everything needed to call this tool and act on its results correctly.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description does not add syntax, query-construction advice, or any mention of the `language` filter — it only frames the search broadly. Adequate, but it leaves the schema to do all the parameter work.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("Search across the Mintlify knowledge base") and enumerates the content types returned — information, code examples, API references, guides. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool by routing full-page reads to query_docs_filesystem_mintlify, so an agent can pick 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?

It states concrete when-to-use cases (answering Mintlify questions, finding docs, understanding features, locating implementation details) and names the alternative with the exact condition that selects it: use query_docs_filesystem when the full page content is needed. It even supplies the mechanical follow-up recipe (append `.mdx`, e.g. `head -200 /some/page.mdx`), leaving nothing to inference.

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