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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Read-only; no side effects' is consistent with those. Beyond the annotations, it adds valuable behavioral context: results are 'ranked matches in Markdown grouped into Documentation and Code sections, each with a title, snippet, and source paths,' and omitting query returns recent context. This goes beyond the structured safety hints without fully covering all edge behaviors like pagination.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then safety, then return format, then usage guidance. Every sentence carries unique information: scope, output structure, when-to-use alternatives, and edge-case behavior. No repetition or filler beyond a short safety reinforcement.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description thoroughly explains return values (Markdown, grouped sections, title/snippet/source paths) and covers key invocation scenarios (open-ended lookup, omit query, specific getter alternatives). The rich schema covers parameter details and the annotations cover the safety profile, so nothing critical is left unexplained for a search tool.

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 all three parameters (limit, query, repository) are already documented with defaults, ranges, and fallback behaviors. The main description reinforces the query-omission behavior and result grouping but adds little parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 opens with a specific verb and scope: 'Keyword and semantic search across the connected repository's generated docs, conventions, documentation gaps, AI-context notes, and indexed code.' It clearly enumerates what is searched and differentiates from sibling getters by framing itself as the open-ended discovery tool, matching the annotation title 'Search docs and code.'

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use for open-ended lookups when you don't know which category holds the answer; when you do, the specific getters (get_conventions, get_doc_gaps, get_documentation_opportunities) are more direct.' It names concrete alternatives and also discloses the edge-case behavior of omitting query, giving the agent clear decision rules.

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