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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive), and the description adds meaningful behavior: results come back as contextual snippets with titles and direct links rather than full pages. It also reveals the useful workflow detail that returned paths are read via `head`/`cat` with a `.mdx` suffix appended. Slightly muddied because part of that guidance describes the sibling tool's usage rather than this one's.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then usage triggers, then return shape, then the handoff to the sibling. The `.mdx`/`head -200` parenthetical is longer than needed and drifts into the sibling's territory, but it is actionable rather than filler.

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 single-parameter, read-only search tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, retrieval scope, result shape (titles plus direct links), and the follow-up path for full content. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and to route results onward.

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 100% and there is only one parameter, so the schema already carries the burden. The description does not clarify query semantics (natural language vs. keyword, phrase handling, whether code snippets can be searched), which is the one thing it could add beyond the one-word 'Search query' schema text.

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 across the Celo Docs knowledge base') and enumerates what it retrieves: information, code examples, API references, guides. It is clearly distinguished from the sibling query_docs_filesystem_celo_docs, which is framed as the follow-up for full page content.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use triggers ('answer questions about Celo Docs', 'understand how features work', 'locate implementation details') and an explicit alternative with its condition: use query_docs_filesystem when the full page content is needed. Nothing is left for the agent to infer.

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