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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by stating the query is only used for ranking and warning against including credentials, PII, or proprietary code — a data-handling constraint not present in the structured fields. It does not describe the return shape or pagination, so it falls short of a 5.

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 tight sentences: purpose first, then call-order guidance, then the data-safety constraint. No filler and every sentence carries distinct 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?

For a two-parameter resolution tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is nearly complete. The only gap is that no output schema exists and the description never indicates what comes back (a single ID vs. a ranked list), which an agent would otherwise need to infer.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema (including length limits and the ranking purpose of query). The description largely restates the schema's privacy guidance and adds no new syntax or format detail, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 precise verb+resource pair: 'Resolve a package or product name to a Docsy library ID.' The purpose is unambiguous and clearly separable from the sibling query-docs and list-library-versions 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?

Explicitly states when to call it ('before query-docs') and the condition under which it can be skipped ('unless an exact /org/project or /org/project/version ID is already known'). This routes the agent between siblings with no inference required.

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