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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and discloses key behaviors: 'Read-only. Bundled index (no network call) — results reflect docs at build time.' It also explains ranking logic ('Ranks matches by keyword frequency') and the return format with sorted order, going beyond a basic read/write hint.

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 organized into clear sections: scope, when to use, and return format. Every sentence adds value—no fluff. Despite moderate length, it remains focused and front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy for an agent to quickly assess relevance.

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?

Given no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return JSON structure with field names and sorting, plus metadata fields like query, count, and indexGeneratedAt. It covers use cases, behavior, limitations (build-time index), and parameter semantics, making it self-sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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%, but the description adds valuable usage guidance: for limit it gives default, range, and context-specific advice ('Use smaller values (3-5) when you already have a narrow query; use larger values (15-20) for exploratory scans'); for query it explains ANDed multi-word behavior and per-field weighting with concrete examples. This significantly enriches schema definitions.

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 states 'Full-text search across every UploadKit docs page (88+ pages)' with a specific verb and resource, covering all docs. It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_components and get_doc by clearly scoping to docs pages and listing covered categories (getting-started, SDK reference, etc.).

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 provides a 'When to use' section: 'any question about UploadKit behaviour, configuration, or integration that the component tools do not answer — middleware, onUploadComplete callbacks, REST API endpoints...' This gives clear usage context and implies alternatives (component tools) without naming them directly, covering exclusions effectively.

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