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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: retrieval is semantic rather than exact-match and is backed by the official strudel.cc and ABCJS docs, which tells the agent how to phrase queries and how much to trust results. It stops short of saying how many results come back or how ranking works, which keeps it off 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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then routing guidance, then the underlying mechanism. No redundancy with the name or title, and no filler.

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 read-only search with full schema documentation and no output schema, the definition covers purpose, retrieval mechanism, source corpora, and when to prefer it over siblings. The only mild gap — result count and ranking — is minor for a semantic search tool and partly implied by the return description.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already explains both parameters in depth, including good/bad query examples and the strudel vs abcjs enum meanings. The description only adds the indirect hint that `library` maps to the two indexed doc sources; it contributes nothing about query length or formatting beyond what the schema states. 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 ('Search detailed documentation') and immediately scopes it to two named corpora, 'Strudel live coding or ABC/ABCJS notation'. It also names the sibling guides it complements, so an agent can distinguish it from get-strudel-guide and get-music-guide without opening either schema.

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 gives the selection condition: use this when 'the curated guides (get-strudel-guide, get-music-guide) don't cover what you need', and enumerates the trigger cases — specific functions, advanced techniques, uncertain syntax. This is a clear when-to-use plus named alternatives, leaving little to inference.

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