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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds a result cap (at most 5 hits), the shape of each hit (excerpt, path, link), and an iterative-search behavior, which are useful beyond annotations. It does not cover rate limits or auth, but those are likely unnecessary for this read-only search.

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 with the purpose front-loaded, followed by return details and a practical tip; no 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?

For a simple one-parameter search with full schema coverage, output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers purpose, return cardinality/shape, and how to get more detail. Nothing critical 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% and the only parameter is documented as 'Search query'. The description adds no query syntax, format, or examples beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Search' and resource 'Control Plane docs', making the tool's function unmistakable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools that also retrieve information (e.g., get_cpln_skill), so it falls short of a 5.

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 a clear iterative usage tip ('For more of a page, search again with terms from it') but does not state when to choose this tool over alternatives or any prerequisites/exclusions. The context is implied by 'Control Plane docs', but there is no explicit guidance on use vs siblings.

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