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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already covers the safety profile. The description adds that it returns 'ONLY the matching sections' and returns 'top matching sections' (scoping the result set), plus the cheap-index behavior. This adds meaningful context beyond the annotation but doesn't describe pagination or the exact return shape, which is acceptable given no output schema.

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, all earning their place: purpose, dual usage modes, and sibling distinction. Front-loaded with the purpose verb. Zero 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 search tool with only 2 parameters (both fully documented in schema), readOnlyHint=true annotation, and no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs: how to invoke (with/without query), what to expect back (matching sections), and when to delegate to nifra_types. Complete.

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%, so both parameters (limit and query) are already documented in the schema. The description adds the example query 'isr revalidate' and the omission-of-query-for-index behavior, plus that limit controls 'Max sections.' This is baseline-plus value, but the schema already carries the semantic weight.

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 verb (search), resource (nifra's framework documentation), and scope (returns ONLY matching sections, covering auth, uploads, ISR, WebSockets, loaders, deployment). It distinguishes itself from nifra_types sibling by explicitly naming the alternative for exact TypeScript lookups.

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 guidance: call with no query for the section index, pass a query for top matching sections. It also names an explicit alternative (nifra_types for exact TypeScript) and tells the agent to avoid reading llms-full.txt (~150 KB). This is strong when/when-not guidance.

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