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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and closed-world behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the return shape ('contextual content with titles and direct links') and the follow-up read pattern with a concrete example command. It stops short of describing result limits, ranking, or pagination behavior.

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 with the purpose and usage trigger before moving to return format and the sibling handoff. Every sentence carries information, though the parenthetical .mdx example adds length that could have been tightened.

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 two-parameter, read-only search tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, triggers, result shape, and the exact follow-up path to retrieve full content. Nothing an agent needs in order to call and chain this tool 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both `query` and `language` (including the 'en' default). The description adds no query syntax, language-code format, or filtering nuance beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Search across the Sorsa Developer Platform knowledge base') and enumerates what it surfaces (information, code examples, API references, guides). It also implicitly distinguishes itself from query_docs_filesystem_sorsa_developer_platform, which is described as the tool for full page content rather than search.

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 trigger conditions ('when you need to answer questions about Sorsa Developer Platform, find specific documentation, understand how features work, or locate implementation details') and names the alternative for a different need ('If you need the full content of a specific page, use the query_docs_filesystem tool'). The handoff even includes the mechanical detail of appending .mdx to the returned path.

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