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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the search scope, that results include matched sections and snippets, and that it returns best-matching pages rather than full content. It does not cover all possible edge behavior, but it gives enough context for a search tool.

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 compact sentences with no filler: the first states what the tool does and returns, the second gives the exact usage condition plus the recommended next action. Every clause earns its place.

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 search tool with no output schemacars, the description fully covers purpose, scope, return format, when to use it, and what to do next. The parameters are fully documented in the schema)Skip; no essential missing context remains.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters and provides examples. The description adds context about keyword-based matching and snippet results, but it does not materially extend the schema's parameter meaning beyond what is already present.

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 states a specific verb ('Search'), a precise resource ('every bundled page of the Alter documentation'), and the exact return shape ('best-matching pages with the section and a snippet'). It clearly differentiates this from fetch_doc by its search scope and outcome.

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?

It explicitly says when to use the tool: 'when a flow step or doc did not point you at the page you need'. It also names what to avoid ('guessing slugs or listing every page') and gives the follow-up action ('then read one with fetch_doc and its slug'). This is ideal routing guidance.

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