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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by stating the broad scope of documentation sources and that results are ranked with titles, URLs, and descriptions. No contradiction with annotations.

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 four concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence contributes distinct information: what it searches, where it searches, what it returns, and how to proceed. No redundancy or 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 read-only search tool with only two fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it states the search scope, the return format (ranked results with titles, URLs, descriptions), and the logical next step (get_document_tool). Nothing essential is missing.

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 both 'query' and 'limit' fully described in the schema. The description adds context about natural-language/kewyord searching and the breadth of sources, but it does not provide additional syntax or parameter details beyond what the schema already offers, aligning with the baseline for high coverage.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Search Mapbox documentation', then enumerates the exact sources (API reference, GL JS, Help Center, etc.). It clearly distinguishes from sibling get_document_tool by positioning this as the search/retrieval step and explicitly says to use get_document_tool to fetch full content.

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 clearly indicates when to use this tool (when searching docs by keyword or natural language) and explicitly points to get_document_tool as the alternative for fetching full content. It does not mention the sibling batch_get_documents_tool, but the guidance given is sufficient for the primary workflow.

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