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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: results include an excerpt around the match, and the stated intent is to quote Vooks rather than paraphrase from memory. It stops short of describing ranking or what happens when nothing matches.

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, no filler. The corpus scope comes first, the return shape and quoting rationale second, and the sibling hand-off last — a well-ordered, front-loaded structure.

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 and annotations are rich, so the description only needs to cover scope, return character and alternative routing — all of which it does. For a two-parameter read tool, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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%, with both query and limit already documented including examples and the default of 5. The description adds no further semantics about matching behavior or how limit interacts with result quality, so the baseline of 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?

Specific verb 'Search' plus an explicit enumeration of the corpus (agent index, pricing page, site overview, Public Catalog API guide), which tells the agent exactly what is searchable. It is clearly distinguishable from fetch_doc, which retrieves a whole document rather than matching excerpts.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to fetch_doc when an excerpt is insufficient, which is the key decision boundary for this tool family. It does not mention list_docs or state when searching is the wrong choice, so the guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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