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 two pieces of context beyond them: the auth requirement ("No partner key needed") and the response shape ("matching sections with a preview"), the latter usefully signalling truncated results. It does not mention result limits or ranking, keeping it at 4 rather than 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?

Four short sentences, zero filler: what is searched, what comes back, when to use it, and what auth is required. The most decision-relevant facts (scope and return shape) are front-loaded.

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 single-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, coarse return shape, and auth requirements. The only residue is that it doesn't state whether results are limited or how to move from a preview to full content via bridge_docs_section.

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% and the single "query" parameter is documented in the schema with concrete examples ("webhook signature", "error 131047"). The description adds no syntax, scoping, or format guidance beyond that, so this is baseline territory where 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?

The description names a specific verb ("Search") and a clearly scoped resource: the WasapFlow Bridge API reference, partner guide and changelog. It also states the return shape ("matching sections with a preview"), which separates it from the sibling bridge_docs_section that presumably fetches a full section. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

"Use before writing integration code" gives a concrete usage context that an agent can act on. There are no explicit exclusions or named alternatives (e.g., when to follow up with bridge_docs_section instead of searching again), so it sits just below the top band.

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