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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description's real addition is the egress disclosure that queries are transmitted to AWS Knowledge and must not contain secrets or customer data — useful context beyond openWorldHint. It stops short of describing result freshness, rate limits, or failure modes for an external network call.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and immediately followed by the safety constraint. Nothing is padded and 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?

With no output schema and zero parameter documentation, the description should carry the burden for a three-required-parameter tool dominated by a ten-value enum, but it does not. An agent still cannot tell what a result looks like or which `topic` value to choose for a given question.

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% across three required parameters. The description adds nothing about `topic`, which has ten enum values (general, reference_documentation, cdk_constructs, strands_docs, etc.) whose selection meaning is entirely undisclosed, and nothing about `query` phrasing or the `limit` cap of 5.

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 and resource ("Search live official AWS documentation"), which clearly separates it from synthesis-style siblings like well_architected_review or architecture_pattern. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closely related aws_knowledge_read sibling, leaving the search-vs-read boundary to inference.

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 second sentence is a data-handling constraint, not usage guidance: it never says when to pick this over aws_knowledge_read, aws_skill, or aws_regional_availability. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no indication of when live docs are preferred over cached/regional data.

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