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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral value beyond that: it discloses the return shape (best-matching sections with a snippet and jsonpad.io URL) and what query styles succeed. No rate limits or pagination behavior are mentioned, keeping 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the scope, then the return shape, then the retrieval hand-off, then query tips. The example list is dense but every item is actionable and nothing is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no elaboration, and annotations fully cover the safety profile; the description still adds the snippet/URL detail and search-then-read workflow. With 100% schema coverage and all parameters, annotations and output documented, nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% so the schema already documents all three parameters, making 3 the baseline. The description earns a bump by explaining what inputs work well in 'query' — error codes, names, headers, SDK methods, CLI commands, $jsonpad-var variables and literal route strings like "POST /lists/{listId}/items" — which is meaning the schema's 'What to look for' does not convey.

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 (JSONPad documentation, JavaScript SDK references, CLI reference), and explicitly names read_doc as the follow-up reader. An agent can distinguish this from list_docs, read_doc, get_sdk_method and get_cli_command without opening any 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?

Routes the agent explicitly to the sibling read_doc for retrieval, and gives concrete guidance on query construction ('exact identifiers work well' with examples). It does not, however, state when to prefer lookup_error or get_sdk_method over a general search, so the alternatives coverage is partial rather than exhaustive.

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