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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent, and the description adds valuable context: the data source (bundled TOPIC_MAP and doc file content scan) and the output shape (best-matching doc paths with matched keywords and a retrieval suggestion). This goes beyond the annotation and clarifies what the tool returns and how it works internally.

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 front-loaded with 'USE WHEN' and packs essential information into four sentences: purpose, output, follow-up guidance, alternative usage, and data source. Every sentence contributes value, with no fluff or redundancy.

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 tool with a rich schema and annotations, the description covers purpose, when to use/avoid, output, data source, and next steps. The presence of an output schema means return values need not be detailed further. No significant context is missing.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for the single query parameter with a description and examples. The tool description reiterates the 'exact term' nature but does not add significant new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already states. 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 clearly states the tool resolves exact Pine Script API terms or known concept keywords into matching doc paths and a retrieval suggestion. It distinguishes itself from search_docs (natural language) and get_doc (retrieval), making its specific purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly says when to use it (exact term lookup) and when not to (natural language questions should use search_docs instead). It also provides a concrete follow-up plan: call get_doc for small files or list_sections + get_section for large files, guiding the agent on the next step.

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