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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, destructiveHint=false), so the description's added value is in return behavior: best-matching pages with title, matching sections (heading, snippet, URL) and md_url, plus a direct link to error-code entries. It stops short of describing ranking or pagination behavior, so not a full 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?

A single dense paragraph that is front-loaded with the purpose, then usage, then return shape and next step. Every sentence carries information, though the length is near the upper bound of what is comfortable to parse at a glance.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden itself and does so fully: it describes page structure, section fields, md_url, and the error-code link. Combined with the routing to spicrawl_docs_read, an agent has everything needed to call and follow up 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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond the schema by giving concrete query examples ('wait_for selector', 'ERR::AUTH::INSUFFICIENT_SCOPE') and explaining that the limit governs returned pages. It adds real meaning to how the query should be formed.

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 ('Full-text search over the Spicrawl documentation') and scopes it to guides, API reference, errors and limits. It is cleanly distinguished from sibling docs tools spicrawl_docs_read and spicrawl_docs_index, which are named separately.

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?

Explicit when-to-use: look up a parameter name/value for a spicrawl_* tool, or explain a returned error by searching the error code itself. It also names the follow-up alternative (spicrawl_docs_read with md_url or url), so the agent knows the next step in the workflow.

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