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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is fully covered by structured data. The description still adds value beyond that by disclosing the return shape ("URLs, slugs, and excerpts"), which is the behavior an agent most needs to chain into a read call; it does not repeat annotation content.

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?

Two sentences, both earning their place: the first defines scope, the second defines the return payload. Front-loaded with the verb and resource, zero filler.

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 and rich annotations mean the description needn't explain return values or safety, lowering the burden. The remaining gap is contextual: the presence of ApolloDocsRead as a sibling means the description should describe the search-then-read workflow, and it does not.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100% – the schema already states the key constraint ("broad result with a maximum of 2 keywords"). The description adds nothing about query formulation or example terms, so this is the baseline 3 rather than a value-add.

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?

Specific verb ("Searches") plus a clearly scoped resource ("official Apollo documentation") and an enumerated topic list (GraphQL, GraphOS, Router, Client, Connectors, etc.) that tells an agent what corpus is covered. It stops short of differentiating itself from the obvious sibling ApolloDocsRead, so an agent must infer the search-vs-read division of labor.

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: an agent can reasonably conclude "call this when you need Apollo product knowledge." There is no explicit when-not guidance and no mention of ApolloDocsRead as the natural follow-up for fetching a full page once a slug or URL is returned, which is the single most useful routing hint available.

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