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 usefully adds that results are stable IDs and absolute URLs, but says nothing about result limits, pagination, ranking, or whether the index is scoped to a library.

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?

A single tight sentence with the action front-loaded and the return format appended. Nothing is wasted, though it could carry one more clause of scope without becoming bloated.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool the description is near-adequate: annotations cover safety and the sentence covers returns. It still leaves the agent guessing about result count, pagination, and how this global search relates to query-docs and resolve-library-id.

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 with 0% schema description coverage, so the description is the only source of meaning. It implies `query` is matched against public indexed documentation, which adds slight value, but omits any note about the 4000-char limit or query syntax.

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 (Search) and resource (all public indexed documentation), and adds a return-shape note (stable IDs and absolute URLs). It does not differentiate itself from the sibling query-docs, which an agent would likely confuse with this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternatives (query-docs, resolve-library-id, fetch). The word 'all' hints at scope but gives no condition that selects this tool over its siblings.

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