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 covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the return shape (contextual content with titles and direct links) and the concrete path convention needed to escalate to a full read. It stops short of stating result counts, ranking, or pagination limits, which keeps it from a 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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by usage, then the follow-up workflow. Every sentence is functional, though the trailing head/cat example with the `.mdx` path example is longer than strictly needed for a description that could have deferred that detail to the sibling tool.

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 carries the burden of explaining returns and does so (titles, links, contextual snippets). It covers purpose, routing, and follow-up completely; the only gap is the unmentioned `version` parameter behavior, which the schema alone must carry.

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 both `query` and `version` are already documented in structured form, and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing about query syntax, natural-language vs keyword behavior, or how the version filter interacts with results — it never mentions `version` at all.

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) against a specific resource (Spree Commerce documentation knowledge base) and enumerates the content types returned (info, code examples, API references, guides). It also implicitly separates itself from the sibling by declaring that full-page content is not what this returns.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use triggers (answer questions, find specific docs, understand features, locate implementation details) and names the alternative — query_docs_filesystem — with the exact condition that selects it (need full page content). It even supplies the mechanical handoff (.mdx append plus head/cat example), leaving nothing to inference.

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