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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds relevant behavioral context beyond that: full-text search, ranked results, snippets, and the recommended next step. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is two sentences with the core action and scope front-loaded, followed by concrete output expectations and a routing instruction. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundancy or padding.

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 low-complexity search tool, the description, full schema, and rich annotations cover the main invocation need: what to query, what to expect in return, and how to proceed. It is minimally incomplete only in not explicitly warning that Blender API/symbol lookups belong with docs_bpy_search.

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 fully documents both query and limit. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning such as query syntax, ranking behavior, or limit tradeoffs; the baseline of 3 is 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Search the Blender user manual full-text') and narrows the purpose to conceptual questions about modifiers, shading, physics, animation, and constraints. This clearly distinguishes it from API-reference siblings like docs_bpy_search and from the read tool docs_manual_get.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: for conceptual manual questions, and it explicitly instructs the agent to follow up with docs_manual_get to read a result. It does not explicitly name docs_bpy_search as the alternative for API/symbol lookup, so it falls just short of a 5.

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