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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond them: results are "bounded excerpts" (not full code), include canonical citations, and carry source-review metadata, which sets expectations about truncation and provenance.

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 with zero filler; the retrieval scope comes first, the return characteristics second, and the sibling routing last. Every clause carries 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?

Rich annotations and an existing output schema mean return values and safety need little prose, and the description covers purpose, routing, and result nature. The remaining gap is parameter-level guidance, particularly the limit and scope controls, which are left entirely to the schema.

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 0% for three parameters, so the description bears the burden. It partially compensates by naming content categories (APIs, qb-* resources, setup, troubleshooting) that implicitly map to the scope enum values, but it never addresses limit (default 5, max 10) or query length/format constraints.

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 (Find) plus the resource domain (QBCore APIs, qb-* resources, setup and troubleshooting references), and explicitly differentiates from the sibling docs_get for full code. An agent can tell what this retrieves without opening the 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?

"Use docs_get for complete code" gives a clear alternative and the condition that selects it, effectively defining this tool as the discovery/excerpt step. It does not mention docs_list or say when not to search, so it falls short of fully exhaustive routing guidance.

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