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

The annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description adds meaningful context: weighted matching across section headings (×3), link titles (×2), and notes (×1), plus on-demand indexing per site. This goes beyond the annotations and helps an agent predict how results are ranked.

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 wasted words. It front-loads the search action and resource, then adds the key behavioral details and the primary use case. The weighted scoring notation is compact but informative.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately states what is returned (matching doc links and covering index). The annotations cover safety, and the schema covers parameter constraints and the task_context rationale. Minor gaps include not describing the exact result format or ordering, but the overall picture is complete enough 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 high at 80%, so the schema already documents site, query, max_bytes, and task_context. The description adds value by explaining the weighting behind query matching and reinforcing that site restricts to one site and is indexed on demand. It does not cover limit or max_bytes, but the schema handles those adequately.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search the llms.txt indexes this server has parsed' and states the concrete output: 'matching docs links with their covering index.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tools by framing this as a way to jump to the right page instead of reading the whole index.

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 a clear use case: use it to jump straight to the right page of a docs set instead of reading the whole index. It also explains when to pass the site parameter ('search one site (it is indexed on demand)'). It does not explicitly name the sibling tools or state when not to use them, but the context is clear.

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