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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, not destructive), and the description goes further by disclosing response-level behavior: version_used, version_warning, and per-result version_sensitive/version_note semantics, plus the admission that the index has no notion of edition or product. That is real behavioral context an agent would otherwise only discover by inspecting raw output.

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?

It is front-loaded correctly — mode behavior first, then routing, then output-handling obligations. It runs long, and the version-reporting instructions (how to phrase things to the user) drift toward prompt-engineering rather than tool documentation, but each sentence still serves correct invocation.

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 compensates fully by naming the significant response fields and what they obligate the agent to do. Combined with sibling-tool routing, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and interpret the result.

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% and the schema's own parameter descriptions are extremely detailed, including the version-inference warning and the pointer to resolve_openvidu_version_edition_product. The description's 'Without arguments it returns an overview / With section it returns that section's pages' largely restates what the schema already documents, so the 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 precise verb and resource ('Browses the indexed documentation of a version') and describes both operating modes: overview of all sections, or one section's pages with URLs. It implicitly distinguishes itself from get_doc_page by framing itself as the discovery step ('find out what exists before requesting a specific page').

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?

It gives explicit routing: use this to see what exists before calling get_doc_page, and it points at resolve_openvidu_version_edition_product for resolving the version parameter. The 'Don't guess' instruction and the fallback ('OMIT the parameter') tell the agent exactly what to do in the ambiguous case.

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