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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds the useful fact that results are ranked passages rather than whole pages, but says nothing about pagination, ranking behavior, or the 'limit' cap of 10.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the searched corpus and the return shape front-loaded. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists and the annotations carry the safety profile, so the description does not need to explain return values. For a two-parameter search tool it is nearly complete; the only real gap is routing guidance against read_docs_page.

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 50%: 'query' is documented in the schema while 'limit' (default 5, max 10) is not. The description implies a textual query but adds no syntax, matching-mode, or result-count guidance beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline 3 for partial coverage 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Full-text search over the published developer, authentication, versioning and privacy documentation') and scopes the corpus precisely, so the agent knows exactly what is searched. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling read_docs_page, so an agent cannot tell from this text alone which of the two to pick.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase 'best matching passages' suggests this is the discovery tool and read_docs_page is the retrieval tool, but that division of labor is never stated. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative.

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