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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds value by specifying the corpus (official ROKI docs) and that results are 'ranked excerpts', which gives useful behavioral context beyond annotations. Minor gap: no mention of result format details or pagination, but the annotations lower the bar.

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 core purpose and scope, plus direct usage guidance. No wasted words; 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 straightforward search tool with strong annotations and a fully-described parameter schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool searches, what it returns, and when to use it. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the phrase 'ranked excerpts', which sets expectations for the return type.

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%, with both query and limit having clear descriptions and examples. The description's 'need any ROKI-specific fact' reinforces query semantics but doesn't add new parameter details beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the semantic load.

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 clearly states the tool searches the official ROKI Connect corpus and returns ranked excerpts, using specific verbs and naming the resource scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by framing itself as the go-to for any ROKI-specific fact, which separates it from more targeted getters like roki_get_operation or roki_get_doc_section.

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?

Explicitly instructs to use this tool first for any ROKI-specific fact and warns against answering from memory or applying conventions from other gateways. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and implies that other tools may be used after initial discovery, though it doesn't enumerate specific alternatives.

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