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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals that the operation is read-only, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavioral detail: it returns page sections with specific fields (title, url, snippet, section, version) and notes that no search operators are supported, which helps set expectations. It does not contradict the annotation.

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 longer than the minimal example but every sentence adds value—purpose, usage, excluded scenarios, and output format are all covered without redundancy. It is well-structured and flows logically, though it could be slightly compressed without losing information.

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 description covers everything an agent needs: when to use, what to search, what results look like, and what to avoid. Since an output schema exists, it does not need to detail return values, but it does anyway. It also addresses version matching and section restriction, making it self-contained for correct invocation.

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 descriptions for all four parameters, giving 100% coverage. The description adds extra context by providing example queries and emphasizing that plain keywords work best, which goes beyond the schema. It also clarifies the effect of the version parameter indirectly by mentioning matching the user's package.json. This adds meaningful guidance.

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's purpose: searching the official Capacitor documentation by keyword. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning what it does not do (e.g., reading a full page, listing plugins) and by naming the sibling tools (get_doc_page, list_plugins).

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Use this first for any question about Capacitor itself') and when not to use it, providing concrete alternatives for excluded cases (e.g., using get_doc_page for reading a whole page, using the Capawesome MCP server for plugins). This is highly actionable.

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