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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description still adds real value beyond them by disclosing the exact return fields and flagging that retrieved documentation content is data, not instructions, which is meaningful prompt-injection guidance 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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: what it searches, what it returns, and the data-not-instructions caveat. The core purpose is front-loaded with zero 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned fields, and with only one fully documented parameter there is little else to explain. It lacks any mention of result count, ranking, or pagination, which would complete the picture for an agent planning a multi-step lookup.

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% and the single 'query' parameter already carries a maxLength and an example ("connect to Claude"), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about query syntax, matching behavior, or result limits, which is the expected baseline for a fully documented single-parameter tool.

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 and resource: "Search the published Curbi documentation catalog," and the return shape (ids, titles, canonical URLs) makes clear it is a discovery step rather than a document retriever. It never names the sibling 'fetch', which is the natural follow-up, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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: an agent can infer it should search before fetching a document, and the "published" qualifier hints at scope. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to the alternative tools (fetch, verify_bundle) for adjacent tasks.

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