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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by disclosing that results are partial ranked excerpts with stable article IDs and no exact syntax contract. It does not describe result caps or how the limit interacts with ranking depth, which would matter for invocation planning.

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 sentences, all front-loaded with routing information: scope first, then return-shape caveat, then the two follow-up tool calls. No sentence restates the name or wastes words.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still flags the key return caveat (partial excerpts, stable IDs, not authoritative syntax), which is exactly what an agent needs before deciding to follow up with docs_get or function_describe. For a two-parameter search tool this covers everything required to call it correctly.

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 0% and neither parameter is described in the schema, but the description implicitly tells the agent what to put in query (conceptual/tutorial topics rather than exact syntax). The limit parameter is never mentioned, so the description only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource (search documentation) and narrows the scope to tutorials, conceptual explanations, performance guidance, and broader questions. It also distinguishes itself from docs_get and docs_list by describing the kind of content it returns (ranked excerpts, not full articles).

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 routes the agent: use this for conceptual questions, call docs_get before relying on exact details, and use function_describe when presenting formulas or output-column assumptions. Both the when and the when-not are stated with named alternatives from the sibling set.

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