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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the return format (contextual content with titles and direct links) and the .mdx follow-up convention, which helps the agent understand what happens after the call. No contradiction with annotations.

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 longer than average but each sentence earns its place: purpose, when-to-use, return format, and sibling routing. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and only slightly verbose in the follow-up example.

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?

With a single well-documented parameter, safety annotations present, and no output schema, the description explains the return format and how to consume results via the sibling tool. Minor gaps (result limits, query phrasing guidance) keep it from a 5, but nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 schema already documents the single 'query' parameter. The description adds little parameter-specific detail beyond implying a natural-language search; the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the weight.

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 ('search') and a concrete resource (the nTop knowledge base), and enumerates the content types it retrieves (code examples, API references, guides). It implicitly distinguishes itself from query_docs_filesystem_n_top by framing itself as the search step while the sibling is the full-content reader.

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?

Explicitly states when to use the tool ('when you need to answer questions about nTop, find specific documentation, understand how features work, or locate implementation details') and names the alternative with a concrete condition: use query_docs_filesystem to retrieve full page content via head/cat. This routing is precise and actionable.

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