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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return shape (best matches with page URL), which is useful for chaining, but says nothing about result counts, ranking behavior, truncation, or empty-result handling.

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 waste, front-loaded with the covered corpus and immediately followed by the return value and next step. Every clause earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by stating what comes back (best matches with page URL) and how to continue. Only minor gaps remain around result limits and behavior when nothing matches, which is acceptable for a simple one-parameter 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?

With one parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents query fully with concrete examples. The description adds no syntax, quoting, or phrasing guidance beyond what the schema provides, 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 (search) and resource (Vocenya developer docs), enumerates the covered corpus (guides on auth, webhooks, pagination, outbound calling, live chat, MCP, plus every API endpoint), and distinguishes itself from siblings by naming get_doc_page/get_endpoint as the follow-up read 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?

Clearly frames the workflow: search here, then read a result with get_doc_page or get_endpoint, which routes the agent correctly against all three siblings. It does not state when-not to use it (e.g. use list_endpoints for browsing rather than searching), so it falls short of a full 5.

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