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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: lexical matching with accent handling, title prioritization, deduplication of repeated code boilerplate, and the exact return shape (page IDs, snippets, relative URLs).

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 dense sentences with zero filler, and the core purpose plus the read_page handoff are front-loaded before the lower-value return-shape detail.

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 no output schema, the description usefully states what comes back, and the annotations cover safety. The only material gaps are the undocumented limit parameter and any indication of ranking or result-volume behavior.

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 50%: locale and section are documented in-schema, but query and limit are not. The description compensates partly by clarifying that query is lexical and accent-tolerant and that results are confined to one language, but it says nothing about the limit parameter or section filtering. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Find guides, API methods and warnings') and adds search characteristics (lexical, accent-aware, title-boosted). It routes the agent to read_page for full context, distinguishing it from that sibling, though it does not differentiate itself from list_pages or get_examples.

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?

'use read_page for complete context' gives an explicit handwritten alternative and the condition for it. It does not say when to prefer list_pages or get_examples, and the single-language constraint lives only in the schema.

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