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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, indicating this is a read-only search over a bounded index. The description goes beyond annotations by explicitly stating 'no network round trip' and describing the ranking output ('ranked matches') and citation preference. It does not mention pagination limitations or whether results are fuzzy, but the annotation coverage reduces the burden.

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?

The description is tersely written with bold labels and short bullets, making it scannable. It front-loads the core purpose and in-process nature. A few extra details (e.g., '145+ pages') could be seen as redundant but are informative. No fluff.

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?

Given the complex domain (multiple product docs) and 4 parameters, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, when to call, input requirements, optional filters, and output structure. No output schema exists, so the description appropriately lists returned fields. It is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

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% for all parameters, with helpful examples in query and valid enum values for product. The description adds context on default limit (8) and scoping guidance (e.g., 'provide a slug prefix'), but these largely mirror the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because schema already documents parameter semantics well.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Search the bundled DERO documentation index across derod, tela, hologram, and deropay.' It also clarifies scope (in-process, no network) and indicates it returns ranked matches. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling docs tools like dero_docs_get_page and dero_docs_list.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this BEFORE explaining DVM, RPC, TELA, Hologram simulator, or DeroPay webhooks.' It also gives explicit when-not-to-use by referencing sibling tools (e.g., 'For docs listing, use dero_docs_list; for page content, use dero_docs_get_page'), and advises returning canonical_url and slug as citations.

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