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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is carried structurally. The description adds value by disclosing the retrieval mechanism (vector search) and the return shape ('full article passages with links'), which matters because there is no output schema. No mention of result limits or fallback behavior when nothing is found, which keeps it from a 5.

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, front-loaded with the capability, then the routing rule, then the exclusion. Every clause adds decision-relevant information; there is no filler.

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 one-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the description covers what it searches, when to invoke it first, what it returns, and what it explicitly does not cover. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly 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% and the single query parameter is well documented with concrete examples ('forward calls from Bell'). The description adds nothing further about how to phrase or scope the query, so the baseline 3 applies.

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: 'Search the official SkipCalls product documentation (help center) with vector search.' The parenthetical and 'SkipCalls product documentation' scope clearly separate it from generic siblings like search, search_mentions, and the knowledge_* page tools.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance ('Call this first for any question about how SkipCalls works: what a feature does, how to set something up, which plan includes a feature, or troubleshooting') and explicit when-not ('not for the user's own business facts, settings, calls, or their own Knowledge Base'). It also names the alternative source (the user's Knowledge Base) for the excluded case.

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