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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return shape (titles, headings, Markdown copy address) and that it is a discovery step before answering, but it omits whether results are ranked by relevance (implied by 'best match first' in the limit schema, not the description), whether the Markdown copy is a separate fetch, and any rate or authentication behavior.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and return value, followed by a compact usage directive. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 two-parameter search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is nearly complete: it says what to expect back, when to use it, and how queries are interpreted. The only minor gap is that it doesn't explain how to go from the returned Markdown address to actual page content.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters in detail. The description adds meaningful search-behavior semantics—it clarifies that this is keyword search, not semantic, and that a few plain nouns work better than whole sentences—which goes beyond the schema's stopword and stemming notes.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource+question framing ('Find which WearableDocs page answers a question') and explicitly states what is returned (page titles, headings, clean Markdown copy address). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_faq, get_pricing, and get_state, which appear to be direct entity lookups rather than general search.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use this before answering anything about the product, the record page, evidence, engraving, pricing or health and rights'), which routes the agent toward this tool for a broad set of product questions. However, it does not name when to prefer a specific sibling (e.g., get_pricing for a direct price question) or when not to use this tool.

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