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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive; the description adds substantial context beyond that: parallel search behavior, Mintlify as source of truth, KB as complementary, conflict-resolution priority, return format specifics, and the critical instruction to use the full URL verbatim when citing. No contradiction with annotations.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, synthesis rule, return structure, limit nuance, alternative tool, citation guidance, and examples. It is well-organized, front-loaded with the core behavior, and uses examples to clarify usage without unnecessary filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description appropriately explains return values: Mintlify matches with titles, snippets, and full URLs, and KB articles with title, summary, and markdown. It also covers the limit behavior, conflict resolution, and citation format. For a search tool with this level of nuance, nothing essential is missing.

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%, so query and limit are documented. The description enhances this by clarifying that the limit applies only to KB results (not Mintlify matches) and by providing concrete query examples. This adds meaning beyond the schema's generic descriptions, though the schema already carries most of the parameter burden.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Search' with clear resources: Costory product docs (Mintlify) and knowledge base. It states the search runs in parallel and describes the output, distinguishing it from the sibling get_documentation_page by explicitly naming it for full-page retrieval. This gives an agent a precise understanding of what the tool does.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: use get_documentation_page for a full Mintlify page, includes query-to-parameter examples, and explains how to handle conflicts between sources. It lacks a broader comparison to other search-like siblings (e.g., search, query), but the key alternatives are addressed and the intended context is clear.

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