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

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context that the tool is public and requires no account, plus that it returns slugs for get_doc, though it does not mention result limits or pagination behavior.

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 three short, front-loaded sentences with no waste. It moves from purpose to return value to access requirement efficiently.

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 simple two-parameter search tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description covers purpose, return routing, and access model. The main gap is the lack of explanation for the 'limit' parameter, but the schema supplies numeric constraints and the output schema handles return structure.

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%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the 'query' parameter as keyword-based search, but says nothing about the 'limit' parameter's meaning, default, or bounds, leaving half the parameters semantically undocumented.

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 a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('current integration documentation and guides by keyword'), and distinguishes itself from the sibling get_doc by returning document slugs for it. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with other sibling search or listing tools.

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?

It implies usage by saying it returns slugs for get_doc, which suggests a search-then-fetch workflow. It also notes the tool is public with no account needed, but it gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternative sibling comparisons.

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