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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description's only added behavioral value is scoping the corpus to official QRStuff documentation. It says nothing about result volume, ranking, or whether empty results are common.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the resource named first and the supported content types enumerated after. The four-item list is slightly heavy but each item genuinely narrows scope, so nothing is wasted.

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 an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the description only needs to establish corpus scope and intent, which it does. What an agent might still want — whether results are document links or snippets, and how to handle no-hits — is left to the output schema.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains that `query` accepts search terms or a natural-language question. The description adds the topical domain but no syntax, phrasing, or query-construction guidance beyond the schema. 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 (Search) and a specific resource (the official QRStuff knowledge base and help documentation), plus the content types it indexes (guides, tutorials, feature explanations, FAQs). No sibling tool does documentation lookup — every other tool is a QR/link/account API operation — so the distinction is immediate.

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 implies usage (how-to/FAQ questions about QR codes, short links, account settings) but never says when to prefer this over data-returning siblings like get_account_overview or get_user_profile. There are no exclusions or 'use this instead of' routing statements.

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