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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds scope context (API/SDK questions) and a routing hint, but does not describe return format, pagination, or behavior on no results. With annotations present, this is adequate but not richly descriptive, matching the calibration example that scored 3.

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?

Two concise sentences with the primary purpose stated first, followed by a clear routing to the sibling tool and a specific search hint. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the core function.

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 all parameters documented, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers the essential purpose, routing, and usage context. It could mention what the tool returns (e.g., doc snippets) but that is implied by 'search docs.' Given the annotations and schema coverage, this is nearly 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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (query, limit, currentDocsPathname) are fully documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides; it only suggests search terms. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter documentation.

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 tool performs searches on SocialFetch docs for API/SDK questions, a specific verb+resource+scope. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling docs_read by explicitly saying docs_read is for response fields, so an agent can tell them apart.

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 provides explicit routing: 'For response fields use docs_read' and gives specific search guidance for cross-platform naming ('search field crosswalk or read /product/ask-ai/field-crosswalk'). This tells the agent when to use this tool versus alternatives and how to construct effective queries.

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