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

Discloses that it searches only the latest published version and returns matching pages with specific fields, and states the keyword-only limitation. The readOnlyHint annotation aligns with the read-only nature; no contradictions. Some behaviors (e.g., pagination, exact matching details) are left to schema or implicit.

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 concise sentences that front-load the primary purpose, include usage chaining, and highlight the keyword-only restriction. 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 simple search tool, the description adequately covers what it searches, what it returns, and how to proceed. It lacks explicit error-condition or edge-case notes, but the output shape and workflow are clear enough for an agent.

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% with each parameter described (documentationId, query, limit). The description adds little beyond the schema, though it clarifies the query is case-insensitive and limit has default/max, but these are already in 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 clearly states the tool performs full-text search across a published documentation portal, specifying it searches page titles, headings, and body text of the latest published version, and returns matching pages with fields (slug, title, section, snippet). It is distinct from siblings like get_doc_page or search.

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?

Explicitly instructs to chain get_portal_page with a returned slug to read the full page, notes keyword-only search (no semantics), and warns that project context must be set via set_context first. This gives clear when-to-use and prerequisite guidance.

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