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

Annotations already declare readOnly and openWorld, but the description adds meaningful context beyond them: that searching has no ingestion side effect, that the corpus is a limited 18-page Go docs subset, and that version filtering is not available. These are genuine behavioral traits not derivable from the annotations or schema.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the caveats. No filler, though the limitation caveats are somewhat repetitive with the schema descriptions.

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?

With an output schema present and full annotation coverage, the description needn't explain return values. It adequately conveys scope, constraints, and the no-ingestion side-effect, leaving little an agent would need to call it correctly.

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 every parameter thoroughly. The description's statements about `doc`-only support and unavailable version filtering largely restate what the schema fields already say, adding little new parameter meaning. 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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Search indexed developer artifacts and matched passages from registered sources') and clarifies that search does not trigger ingestion. It scopes the corpus to a verified Go documentation subset. It stops short of naming the sibling tool (developer_sources) in the prose, so an agent learns the relationship only via the schema field description.

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 supplies useful constraints for correct invocation (only `doc` supported, version filtering unavailable, search never starts ingestion), which implicitly guides usage. However, there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus alternatives such as developer_sources, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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