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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds useful behavioral context beyond them: a hard cap of 5 hits and the shape of each hit (short excerpt + page path). It omits pagination/ranking behavior, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then return shape, then the follow-up tool with an exact command. No wasted text.

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 single-parameter read-only search, the description covers purpose, result limits, and the natural next step. With an output schema present it need not spell out return values further, so nothing an agent needs 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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents 'query'. The description adds no syntax, matching, or formatting guidance beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline for full coverage.

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+resource ('Search the Control Plane docs') and implicitly scopes it against the sibling reader by describing the two-step search-then-read workflow. An agent can distinguish it from query_docs_filesystem_control_plane without opening either schema.

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?

Clearly establishes the search-first context and routes the agent to the alternative (query_docs_filesystem_control_plane) for full-page reads, including the concrete invocation pattern. It does not state exclusions or when search alone is insufficient, so it stops short of a 5.

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