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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one behavioral trait beyond the schema: results carry ids that chain into fetch. It says nothing about result volume, ranking, pagination, or scope limits, so the disclosure is partial.

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, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded ahead of the follow-up workflow hint. Nothing needs trimming.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the action plus the id-to-fetch handoff. The one material omission is differentiation from the near-identically named sibling 'search_docs'.

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?

One parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Search terms.'), so the schema already documents it. The description adds no syntax, formatting, or query-operator guidance beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search the Medius docs for matching pages and sections'), which is clear on its own. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling tool literally named 'search_docs', leaving the agent unable to tell the two apart from the description alone.

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?

'Pass a result's id to fetch to read its page' gives useful workflow context for what to do after searching. But it offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'search_docs', nor any exclusions or prerequisites, so usage is only implied.

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