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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds what the annotations cannot: the result shape (best-matching sections with a snippet and a link) and the fact that results are pointers rather than full content, which is the key thing an agent needs to know before acting.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler: the first establishes scope, the second establishes return format and the follow-up path. Search scope is front-loaded and nothing is repeated from the title or schema.

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-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, return shape, and next step, which is everything needed to invoke it correctly and interpret the response. The only unstated details (ranking algorithm, result ordering) are not actionable for the caller.

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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters carry inline descriptions with bounds and an example query, so the schema does the work. The prose adds no extra meaning about how query terms are matched or how limit affects ranking, leaving this at the baseline.

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 ("Searches") plus the exact resource scope: integration guide, error catalog, changelog, operations and webhooks. This distinguishes it from the get_* siblings, which retrieve a single item rather than performing a cross-corpus lookup.

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 an explicit two-step workflow: search here to find candidate sections, then read one in full with get_guide_section, get_error, get_operation or get_webhook. That is clear routing guidance naming the actual alternatives, though it never states when not to search (e.g. when a known ID makes a direct get_* preferable).

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