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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the description only needs to add scope. It does: it names the indexed corpus and the shape of each hit, which tells an agent what a miss means. Nothing about ranking or truncation behavior is disclosed, but the output schema covers the return shape.

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 short sentences with zero filler: capability and return shape first, then when to use, then a concrete example. Front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 full output schema and full annotation coverage, the description needs only to explain corpus scope and intent, which it does. A small gap remains around what happens with zero hits or how sections are ranked, but nothing required for correct invocation is missing.

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 baseline is 3. The description earns one notch above by providing a worked example ("what does pending_approval mean") that shows the query should be a natural-language question or topic rather than a keyword string — meaning the schema alone does not convey.

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 ("Searches Prubex's documentation") and enumerates the corpus (concepts, errors, tool reference) plus the returned fields (heading, text, link). It implicitly separates itself from search_tools and prubex_overview by scoping to docs, but never names those siblings explicitly.

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 a clear triggering condition: use it when an error or rule is unclear, or the user asks how Prubex works. It stops short of an exclusion — it never says to prefer prubex_overview for a broad tour or search_tools for tool discovery — so an agent must infer the routing.

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