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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so safety is clear. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it explains the search returns 'contextual content with titles and direct links' and explains how to retrieve full pages via append `.mdx`. No contradictions.

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 description is three well-organized sentences: purpose, when to use, and alternative for deeper access. Each sentence earns its place and includes a concrete example, with no fluff or repetition.

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 a single parameter, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description is complete enough. It explains what the tool returns (titles and direct links), when to use it, and how to access full content through a sibling tool. No gaps remain.

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% with the only parameter `query` already described as 'Search query'. The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond implying the query is used to search the knowledge base, so 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 clearly states a specific action: 'Search across the nTop knowledge base' to find relevant information, code examples, API references, and guides. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like query_docs_filesystem_n_top by explicitly pointing to that tool for full page content.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this tool when you need to answer questions about nTop, find specific documentation, understand how features work, or locate implementation details.' It also gives an alternative for full content: 'use the query_docs_filesystem tool to head or cat the page path'.

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