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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: results are ranked 'best sections first' and each carries a snippet, anchored URL and last-changed timestamp. It stops short of describing how ranking is derived or how snippets are truncated.

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 sentences, zero filler. The retrieval purpose and ranking behavior come first, with the hand-off to get_chapter placed last where a follow-up action belongs.

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, so return values need not be restated, yet the description still conveys ranking order and field composition. Coverage of purpose, routing and result shape is sufficient for a three-parameter read-only search tool.

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%, so the enum for kind, the limit bounds/default and the query example are already documented. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 (search) and precise resource scope (the guide's chapters, margin notes and events), then enumerates what a result contains. The agent can distinguish this retrieval tool from list_chapters or get_chapter without opening any schema.

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?

Frames the trigger ('for a Databricks question') and explicitly routes follow-up reading to the sibling get_chapter, including the two acceptable argument forms (URL, or slug+anchor). That is an explicit alternative with the condition that selects it.

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