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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return shape (matching pages with their paths), which is useful, but says nothing about ranking, result limits, pagination, or whether matching is exact or fuzzy — meaningful gaps for a search tool.

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 no filler, and the resource scope is front-loaded before the return-value note. Nothing is wasted, though it is brief enough that the missing routing guidance is conspicuous.

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 tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description covers purpose and return shape. It falls short on search behavior and result-set characteristics, which an agent would need to use results 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?

Only one parameter exists and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents 'query'. The description adds no syntax, tokenization, or matching-behavior detail beyond what the schema already provides, 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 (Search) and resource (Druxt documentation and API reference), and adds what comes back (matching pages with paths). It does not distinguish itself from the siblings get_doc and list_docs, so an agent must infer the boundary between searching, fetching one doc, and listing all docs.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus get_doc or list_docs, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The word 'Search' implies a discovery use case, but the routing decision is left entirely to inference.

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