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 non-annotation context: the return shape ('contextual content with titles and direct links') and the concrete follow-up convention of appending '.mdx' to a returned path before reading it. It does not mention result limits, ranking, or pagination, so it stops short of 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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then usage conditions, then the sibling handoff — a sensible ordering with no filler. The trailing parenthetical with the head/cat example is slightly verbose, but it carries concrete operational value rather than padding.

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, yet the description covers what comes back (titles and direct links) and how to escalate to full content, which is the key unknown for a search tool. An agent can call it and act on the results without further information.

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% and both parameters are documented there, including the language example and the 'en' default. The description adds nothing about query syntax or language behavior, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 Mintlify knowledge base') and enumerates the content types retrieved (code examples, API references, guides). It is clearly distinguishable from query_docs_filesystem_mintlify, which is named as the tool for full-page reads.

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 Mintlify, find specific documentation, understand how features work, locate implementation details') and an explicit alternative with the triggering condition ('If you need the full content of a specific page, use the query_docs_filesystem tool'). Routing is unambiguous.

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