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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description adds meaningful context by disclosing the return shape (source URLs and excerpts) and what the tool will not do ('no generated advice'). This is especially useful for an AI agent choosing between tools in a documentation context.

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?

The description is a single sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds valuable return information and a caveat. Every clause earns its place with no redundant wording.

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 an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the description sufficiently covers the tool's core purpose, return content, and key limitation. It does not mention the language parameter, but that is adequately documented in the input schema.

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 0%, so the description needs to compensate. It partially does by implying that 'query' is a keyword string ('Search ... using keywords'), but it does not mention the 'language' parameter at all. The parameter names and enum/default in the schema help, but the description does not carry enough weight for the low coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search'), identifies the resource ('published site documentation'), and clarifies the retrieval behavior ('Returns source URLs and excerpts; no generated advice'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like read_document (likely reading a specific doc) and list_services (listing services).

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?

The description clearly establishes this as the keyword-search entry point for documentation, so an agent knows when to invoke it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to use read_document or list_services instead.

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