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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond that by disclosing the output shape ("short answers with links"), which matters because no output schema exists. It says nothing about result limits or coverage gaps, but the schema covers limit.

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?

Two short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the return behavior second. The topic enumeration is longish but earns its place by defining searchable scope; nothing is redundant.

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 simple two-parameter read-only lookup with full schema coverage and complete annotations, the definition supplies what is missing: what content is indexed and what the response looks like. Only the absence of any steer toward alternative tools keeps it from being fully complete.

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%, and both parameters (query, limit) are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds marginal meaning by listing topics that make good queries, but gives no guidance on query phrasing or how limit interacts with answer length.

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 resource ("Scribase docs") and enumerates the covered topic areas, so an agent can immediately tell it is a documentation-lookup tool. It doesn't need to differentiate from siblings since no other tool in the list searches docs, but it also does not say so 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?

Usage is only implied: the topic list hints that this is the tool to reach for on conceptual/how-to questions about connecting apps, RLS, branching, migrations, auth, and tokens. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over alternatives such as database.query or tables.describe, nor any when-not guidance.

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