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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and a closed (non-open-world) corpus, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the return shape ('ranked excerpts with the canonical URL of each page') and the mandatory citation behavior. It does not mention ranking basis or pagination/limit interaction, which keeps it short of 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?

Content is front-loaded: scope first, then the usage imperative, then the exclusion. Both the usage and exclusion sentences are dense but each earns its place by preventing a real misrouting. Slightly long as a single block, but there is no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description explains what comes back (ranked excerpts plus canonical URLs) and what the agent should do with it (cite the URLs), which is exactly the missing piece. Combined with the explicit boundary against the DX server, an agent has everything needed to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 67%, and the two documented parameters (lang, query) already carry their meaning in the schema, including the Spanish-primary nuance. The description adds nothing about parameter syntax or the limit ceiling beyond what the schema states, so it sits at the baseline for a partially documented 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 and resource ('Search the official Griddo documentation') and immediately scopes it to content authors and site administrators, enumerating the covered domains (backoffice, Author Experience, pages, modules, templates, forms, media gallery, roles, publishing). It also explicitly demarcates the sibling DX Docs MCP server, so an agent can distinguish this from related tools without opening a schema.

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 ('before answering any question about how to do something in the Griddo backoffice'), a required follow-up action ('cite the URLs you get back'), and an explicit when-not-to-use with the alternative named ('Do NOT use it for developer questions about @griddo/core hooks... covered by the separate Griddo DX Docs MCP server'). Nothing is left to inference.

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