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

The annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful detail that matching spans multiple surfaces including error text (good for troubleshooting), but says nothing about result ranking, the default of 6 results, or whether results include content or only references.

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?

A single tight sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler beyond the mild 'complete' emphasis. It is well sized for a simple two-parameter search tool; nothing is wasted, though no structure (e.g., query-vs-limit or result handling) is offered.

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?

The tool is simple, the annotations are rich, and no output schema exists.

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 50%: 'query' is documented in the schema, and the description usefully clarifies the kinds of text the query matches against. However, the 'limit' parameter (default 6, max 10) is undocumented in both schema and description, leaving an agent to guess at result-set control.

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 ('Search') and resource ('the complete Amomic-AI documentation') plus the match surfaces (task, concept, heading, keyword, error text), which lets an agent separate it from read_doc (fetch a known doc) and search_api (API reference lookup). It never names either sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferred from scope rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied: the verb 'search' suggests use when you lack a document identifier and would otherwise call read_doc, but the description never says when to prefer this over read_doc or search_api, nor what to do with results. No exclusions, no prerequisites, no follow-up guidance.

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