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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description does not contradict them. It adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: search returns 'contextual content with titles and direct links', and it clarifies that search does not return full page content, pointing to the filesystem tool for that. This helps the agent set correct expectations about the result.

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?

Four sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, usage guidance follows immediately, and the alternative-tool routing is concise and concrete. Every sentence contributes something the agent needs.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description tells the agent what to expect from results (contextual content, titles, links) and how to get full content when needed. Given the tool's simplicity and strong annotations, nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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%, so the schema already documents both query and version. The description adds no extra parameter-level detail beyond the schema, but it does contextualize that the returned path can be appended with .mdx. This is useful but not essential for understanding the parameters themselves, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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'), a clear resource ('SiteGPT Docs knowledge base'), and the kinds of content returned (code examples, API references, guides). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling query_docs_filesystem tool by noting search returns links/titles, while full content requires the filesystem tool.

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?

Explicitly says when to use: 'Use this tool when you need to answer questions about SiteGPT Docs, find specific documentation, understand how features work, or locate implementation details.' It also gives a concrete alternative for full page content, including how to invoke it with a head/cat command, so the agent knows exactly when to switch tools.

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