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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing that results are relevance-ranked ('best-matching') and carry URLs with page/heading/passage granularity. It stops short of anything about result counts, empty-result behavior, or ranking caveats.

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 colon-front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the result shape is stated compactly after the core action. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 tool with full schema coverage, no output schema, and complete annotation coverage, this is nearly sufficient: the description carries the return-shape burden the missing output schema would otherwise leave. The only shortfall is the absent routing guidance against the two sibling tools.

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 description coverage is 100%: both 'query' and 'limit' are documented with examples and a default in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax guidance (phrases, operators, exact-match behavior) beyond what the schema already provides, so 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Full-text search over the docs') and even describes the result granularity (pages, headings, passages). It implicitly separates itself from list_docs and read_doc by emphasizing search, but never names those siblings, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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: an agent can infer 'search when you have a query rather than a known doc', but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to list_docs/read_doc for browsing or full-page retrieval. A one-line routing hint would have closed the gap.

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