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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds the only extra behavioral note, that this should precede answering questions, but says nothing about result volume, ranking, or what a hit contains.

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 short sentences with zero waste, and the identification of the tool comes before the usage directive. Nothing is padded or repeated.

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 simple two-parameter read-only search with full annotations and no output schema, the description covers what the tool is and when to reach for it. The unexplained limit parameter is the only real hole in an otherwise sufficient definition.

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 only 50%: query is documented in the schema (natural language, semantic), but limit has no description anywhere. The description contributes no parameter meaning at all, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 the Bot-Hosting documentation.' An agent immediately knows this is a docs lookup tool. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling docs_get, which likely fetches a specific doc page, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

'Use this before answering any "how do I" question' gives a concrete trigger condition tied to the agent's own workflow. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no reference to docs_get as the follow-up alternative, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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