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 behavioral context by stating the return format: 'human-readable markdown with titles, descriptions, and code snippets,' and indicates the tool is optimized for a specific question type. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and every sentence earns its place: the first states what the tool does, the second describes output format and provides a usage guideline. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the rich parameter schema, and the read-only annotations, the description is nearly complete. It explains the output format and primary use case. It could mention result limits or pagination, but for a search tool this is not essential. The lack of an output schema is partially compensated by the description of the markdown return format.

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 detailed descriptions for both 'query' (with examples) and 'category' (with enum list). The tool description itself does not add further parameter-specific meaning, but the schema fully documents parameters. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema bears most of the burden.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Search Klever VM documentation and knowledge base.' It specifies the resource (Klever VM docs) and the verb (search), and distinguishes it from the sibling tool query_context by explicitly directing users to use this tool instead when they need formatted developer documentation.

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 gives explicit usage context: 'Optimized for "how do I..." questions' and directly names an alternative tool: 'Use this instead of query_context when you need formatted developer documentation.' This tells the agent exactly when to choose this tool over a sibling.

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