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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered by structured data. The description adds only that results are 'best matching sections with links' — useful but thin, with no detail on relevance ranking or how results behave when nothing matches.

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 purpose verb+resource leads the sentence, followed by a compact topic inventory and the return shape. The long comma-separated topic list is information-dense but borders on a catalogue; still, every clause carries routing value.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and it briefly signals the return shape anyway. Scope is well covered for a simple two-parameter search tool; only ranking behavior is unspecified.

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 limit are already documented in the schema, including the default of 5. The topic enumeration hints at useful query phrasing but adds no syntax or format meaning beyond the schema.

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) and resource (Velven's documentation), then enumerates the covered topic areas (publishing, velven.json, CLI, SDK, agent API). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools my_spaces, publish, rollback, and versions, which are all operations rather than documentation lookup.

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?

Usage is implied by the topic list and the read-only nature of the tool, but there is no explicit statement of when to reach for this versus reading docs another way, and no exclusions. Adequate but leaves the agent to infer context.

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