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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile requires no restating. The description adds genuine context beyond them: it discloses the return shape (IDs, URLs, excerpts) and the fact that results are pointers to fuller content rather than the guides themselves.

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. The first front-loads what the tool finds, the second front-loads what it returns and where to go next. Nothing is padded or repeated from structured fields.

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 one-parameter, read-only search tool with a full output schema, this description covers everything an agent needs: scope of coverage, result shape, and the follow-up tool. Return values need not be detailed further because the output schema exists.

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% and the single query parameter already carries a description with two concrete examples, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's mention of topics like 'authentication' or 'SDK/CLI usage' loosely illustrates useful query phrasing but adds no constraint or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb (find) and resource (a guide), then enumerates the topical scope: client setup, API requests, SDK/CLI usage, authentication, lookup safety. It also names the sibling read_documentation and states the handoff relationship, so an agent can distinguish the two tools without opening either 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?

Usage is clearly implied: search first when you need to locate a guide, then pass an ID to read_documentation for the full content. That two-step routing is explicit and actionable. It stops short of stating exclusions (e.g., when to skip search and go straight to read_documentation with a known ID), so it is not a full 5.

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