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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the description correctly focuses on behavior the annotations cannot express: the return shape (contextual content with titles and direct links) and the concrete read path via the .mdx extension. It stops short of disclosing ranking, result limits, or empty-result behavior, which keeps it below 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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then return format, then the follow-up workflow. Every sentence carries information, though the parenthetical example ('head -200 /some/page.mdx') is on the verbose side for a description that will be read repeatedly.

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 takes on the burden of describing return values and does so (titles plus direct links). Combined with the explicit escalation path to docs_query_docs_filesystem for full content, an agent has everything needed to search and then materialize a page.

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?

There is a single parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents 'query' fully. The description never clarifies whether the query should be natural language, keywords, or a path fragment, so it adds no meaning beyond the structured field. 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 scoped to the Mzizi knowledge base and enumerates what it surfaces (information, code examples, API references, guides). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling docs_query_docs_filesystem_mzizi, which it explicitly positions as the follow-up reader rather than a search.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use triggers ('answer questions about Mzizi', 'find specific documentation', 'understand how features work') and an explicit handoff condition: if you need full page content, use docs_query_docs_filesystem instead. The agent is routed to the correct sibling without inference.

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