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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description goes further: it describes the return shape (matches, best first, with url/markdown/title/headings/excerpt), states that matches are pointers rather than answers and must be fetched, and clarifies empty results are not errors. That is substantive behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: what it does, what it returns, the fetch-before-answering caveat, the empty-result behavior, then the routing rules. Nearly every clause earns its place, though the coverage list of topic areas is slightly long.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so completely: field names, ordering, and the crucial instruction to fetch the markdown copy before answering. Error semantics and sibling routing are both covered for a two-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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already fully documented in the schema, including the stemmed keyword-matching behavior, the two-character cutoff and the limit cap. The description reinforces the keyword-not-semantic point with its own examples but adds no syntax or format information the schema lacks, 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+resource ('Find which WearableDocs page answers a question, by keyword') and immediately distinguishes itself from siblings by naming get_state, get_faq and get_pricing with the conditions that route to each. An agent can select this tool 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?

Explicit when-to-use ('anything about the product, the record page, evidence, engraving, the health and rights articles or the comparison pages') plus three named alternatives with the precise question type each handles. It also covers the failure case: no match is an empty list, retry with fewer plainer words.

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