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

Annotations already flag read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds context about what the search returns (contextual content with titles and links) and how to access full content, which is useful behavioral info beyond the 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?

Three dense sentences, each earning its place: purpose, usage guidance, and alternative workflow. The .mdx example is concrete and helpful without being bloated.

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?

For a single-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers return format and the follow-up path to the sibling tool. It doesn't mention result limits or pagination, but those are minor for this use case, so a 4.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add extra detail about the query parameter itself beyond describing what the search covers, so a 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 the action (search), the resource (Political Comms knowledge base), and the scope (code examples, API references, guides). It distinguishes itself from the sibling query_docs_filesystem by clarifying it returns search results with links, not 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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('when you need to answer questions about Political Comms, find specific documentation, understand how features work, or locate implementation details') and directs users to query_docs_filesystem for full page content, including the .mdx detail. This is an explicit when/when-not with a named alternative.

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