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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it is unauthenticated, returns ranked pages with paths, URLs, and excerpts, and is read-only. This goes beyond the annotations by describing the return shape and access requirements.

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 core purpose, then adds usage guidance, then return format and access traits. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only search tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, what it returns, and that it's unauthenticated. The only minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly mention the sibling get_wavedash_doc as the alternative when the exact page is known, but the phrase 'when the exact page is unknown' implies that distinction.

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 the schema already documents both parameters (query and limit) with descriptions and constraints. The description adds the example query terms ('sdk setup, multiplayer lobbies, unity webgl, build push') which gives the agent a sense of what to search for, but it doesn't add meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Search'), a specific resource ('official Wavedash docs at docs.wavedash.com'), and the topical scope (browser game development, SDK integration, engines, CLI, upload, publishing). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from web search, which helps an agent understand its unique role among the sibling tools.

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 explicit guidance: 'Use this instead of web search for any Wavedash question when the exact page is unknown.' This tells the agent when to use the tool and when not to (when the exact page is known, presumably get_wavedash_doc is the alternative). It also names the alternative behavior implicitly by contrasting with web search.

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