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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavior beyond that: case-sensitive-first matching so 'DocumentsManager' and 'documentsManager' resolve differently, same-named pages returned as alternatives, and a suggestion fallback on miss. It stops short of describing pagination or the shape of the returned alternatives list.

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 sentences, no filler, and the core capability and accepted formats are front-loaded before the fallback guidance. Every clause carries distinct information.

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 so return values need not be explained, and the description still signals what comes back ('full documentation page'). Combined with the fallback path and matching rules, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly on the first try.

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?

The schema only labels 'name' as an API symbol name, but the description enumerates the three accepted input forms (call syntax, import paths, member access with owner-page resolution) and states the case-sensitivity resolution rule. That is meaning well beyond the structured field.

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 ('look up'), the resource (a Fonto API symbol), the accepted symbol kinds (function, class, manager, type, component) and the payoff ('full documentation page in one call'). It also names the sibling it is not, so an agent can distinguish it from search_fonto_docs without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly scopes use to exact-name lookups and gives the exclusion rule in the same breath: 'If no page has that name, returns search suggestions instead — use search_fonto_docs for concepts or partial names.' The alternative and the condition that selects it are both stated.

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