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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds 'Free' and the type of content returned, but does not disclose additional behavioral aspects like rate limits, pagination, or response format. This is acceptable for a simple read-only search tool but not exceptional.

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?

Three concise sentences. The opening sentence front-loads the core action, the second specifies return value and content, and the third gives usage guidance. No fluff or redundancy.

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 simple read-only tool with full annotations and schema coverage, the description covers what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it. It lacks minor details like search limitations or whether results are snippet-only, but these are not critical for a basic documentation search tool.

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% with detailed descriptions for both 'query' (including example keywords) and 'limit' (default 3, max 5). The description adds no new parameter-level information, so the 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?

The description clearly states 'Search DPX documentation by keyword. Returns the most relevant doc sections' and lists specific content areas (how-to guides, API references, fee structure, etc.). It is immediately distinguishable from all sibling tools given its documentation-search role.

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 explicitly says 'Call this when you need protocol details mid-task rather than relying on context alone,' which provides clear situational guidance. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the instruction is direct and useful.

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