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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond the annotations: that it spends no agent credits, and that `page` returns the whole page while `query` returns matching sections.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose then scope exclusion then usage mechanics. Every clause carries information: routing, mode selection, and cost.

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-param read-only docs tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, alternatives, mode selection, and what each mode returns. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning the schema lacks: the mutual-exclusivity rule ('send exactly one'), the workflow relationship (page path comes from a search result), and a concrete path example.

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 pair (search/read) and resource (Modem's public docs) and enumerates the covered topics: setup, integrations, MCP server and scopes, the API, automations. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling `search_modem` by naming what it is NOT for (your organization's data).

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?

Gives explicit routing: use this for how Modem works, use `search_modem` for org data. It also explains the two modes — send `query` to search, send a `page` path from a search result to read — and the constraint 'send exactly one', leaving nothing to inference.

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