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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: result cardinality (10), ranking (best first), and the fields each result carries, plus the staleness rationale. It stops short of anything like filtering/collision behavior or failure modes, so 4 rather than 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 the search purpose, then the when-to-use imperative, then the return shape. The version-break detail is dense but each clause justifies itself by explaining why an agent should not rely on memory.

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 still specifies the return contract (10 ranked results, each with lib and path, feeding get_page_content). Combined with the full input schema and annotation coverage, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly first in a docs workflow.

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%, and the schema already documents both parameters well, including the lib enum and the 'every term has to match' semantics of query. The description adds only indirect value (naming the libs searched, referencing the lib/path output), so the baseline 3 is correct.

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 (Search) plus the precise resource scope: the current documentation of nine named libraries. An agent immediately knows what corpus is searched and that results are the 10 best-matching pages, distinguishing it from get_page_content and get_example.

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?

Explicit routing instruction: 'Call this FIRST, before answering any question about one of these libraries,' with the reason given (docs track newer releases than training data; APIs broke across major versions). It also names the follow-up step, telling the agent results carry the 'lib and path to pass to get_page_content.'

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