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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are 'ranked' and include 'match scores', conveying ordering and scoring behavior. It does not disclose deeper behavioral details such as ranking algorithm or pagination, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden, making 3 appropriate.

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 two short declarative sentences with no wasted words. The verb and resource are front-loaded, followed by a concise specification of the return format. Every clause adds value.

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 read-only search tool with two flat parameters and no output schema, this description is complete. It explains what to send (query, with limit in schema) and what to expect back (ranked page titles, URLs, descriptions, match scores), satisfying the return-format burden imposed by the missing output schema. Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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 already described in the input schema. The tool description essentially restates the query parameter's purpose and adds no new meaning about limit defaults, query formatting, or edge cases. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema already documents the parameters.

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 ('Search'), a resource ('Atisbo documentation'), the accepted input style ('keyword or natural-language question'), and the return fields ('ranked page titles, URLs, descriptions and match scores'). This clearly differentiates from the sibling tools get_doc and list_docs by action and output shape, even without naming them.

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?

The description implies the tool is used for query-based lookup by describing the supported input forms, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer search_docs over get_doc or list_docs, nor any exclusions or alternative conditions. Guidance is present but relies on inference from the verb 'search' and the tool's name.

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