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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive). The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations by disclosing that the result is contextual content with titles and links, that it does not return full page text, and that .mdx must be appended for filesystem reads. This is exactly the kind of extra context an agent needs.

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?

The description is three sentences with no filler: purpose is front-loaded, usage guidance follows, and the alternative tool/routing detail is at the end. Every sentence earns its place, and the concrete example with head -200 is especially clear.

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 read-only search tool with two simple parameters and no output schema, the description covers everything needed: when to call it, what it returns, and how to get full content from the sibling tool. There are no significant gaps in context for correct selection and 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 parameters ('query' and 'version'). The description does not add parameter-specific semantics, but it also doesn't need to, given full schema coverage. Baseline 3 is appropriate here.

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 explicitly states a specific action ('Search across the SiteGPT Docs knowledge base') and a concrete resource, listing what kinds of content are retrieved (code examples, API references, guides). It also differentiates itself from the sibling tool by clarifying search returns titles/links and directing full-page reads to query_docs_filesystem.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use this tool when you need to answer questions...') and also an explicit when-not-to-use alternative: if full page content is needed, use query_docs_filesystem with the .mdx path. This is model behavior for routing an agent to the correct sibling.

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