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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value on top by disclosing the return shape ('ranked snippets with the package, file path and GitHub link') and the indexed corpus (docs, READMEs, changelogs), which the annotations do not convey.

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: scope first, return value second, usage pattern last. Every sentence carries information and nothing is repeated from structured fields.

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, the description compensates by describing the return value (ranked snippets with package, path, GitHub link). Combined with annotation-covered safety and fully documented params, an agent has everything needed to invoke and use the tool correctly.

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 the schema already documents query, package and limit (including default 8 and range 1-25). The description reinforces the query style with examples but adds no syntax, format, or constraint meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Full-text search across the documentation, READMEs and changelogs of all Laravilt packages') and scopes it to all packages. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list-docs (enumerate) and read-doc (open a specific hit).

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?

Gives concrete usage guidance ('Use short keyword queries') with real examples and names the follow-up alternative ('then open a hit with read-doc'), establishing the search-then-read workflow. It does not state explicit exclusions or when to prefer list-docs/get-package instead, so it falls just short of a 5.

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