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

Annotations already communicate safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds valuable behavioral context: returns 'contextual content with titles and direct links' and explains how to access full content via another tool. It could mention result limits or pagination, but for this simple search tool the added behavior is sufficient and complements the 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 thorough but slightly verbose. It front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence, then logically flows into usage guidance, output description, and alternative tool instructions. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the last sentence about profile availability could be seen as an extra detail; still, it aids correct tool selection and is well-organized.

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 one-parameter search tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it explains what kind of content is returned (titles and links), how to use the results to get full content (append .mdx and use head/cat), and when to choose an alternative tool. It also covers the profile constraint, leaving no major gaps for an agent to understand how and when to invoke this tool.

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 has one parameter 'query' described simply as 'Search query', which is 100% coverage. The description does not elaborate on query syntax, formatting, or accepted query types, but given the parameter's simplicity and full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate. No additional semantic value is added beyond what the schema already provides.

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 searches the Control Plane knowledge base for 'relevant information, code examples, API references, and guides' — a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool query_docs_filesystem_control_plane by explicitly noting that search returns titles and links, not full page content, and by directing users to the alternative for full content.

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 use cases: 'when you need to answer questions about Control Plane, find specific documentation, understand how features work, or locate implementation details.' It also gives clear when-not-to-use guidance, specifying that for full page content you should use query_docs_filesystem_control_plane, and even explains profile differences (default vs full) with actionable next steps.

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