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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond them by disclosing result ordering ('best first') and that each hit carries a source URL — important since there is no output schema. It does not mention corpus scope, empty-result behavior, or result size limits.

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?

A single sentence with no filler; the ranked-order and URL information is packed into the clause rather than a separate sentence. Nothing could be removed without losing content.

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 two-parameter read-only lookup with full schema coverage and existing annotations, the description covers what the tool returns and how results are ordered, which is the main gap given there is no output schema. Minor omissions remain around which documentation set is searched and what an empty result looks like.

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%, with both 'query' and 'limit' documented in the schema including an example and bounds, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about either parameter beyond what the schema already says.

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 the resource (documentation sections) and the retrieval behavior (best match to a question), including that results carry source URLs and are ranked best-first. It implicitly contrasts with get_doc/list_docs by framing the result as a ranked match set rather than a single doc or an enumeration, but it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 by the phrase 'best match a question' — an agent can infer this is for question-driven retrieval rather than browsing. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, and no routing to get_doc for a single known document or list_docs for enumeration.

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