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

The annotations already declare this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive search tool, so the description does not need to repeat safety semantics. It adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations by explaining that it returns the best-matching passages, each with the page title and address, which helps the agent understand the response shape. It does not describe ranking, pagination, or coverage limits in detail, so it falls just short of the highest score.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then efficiently lists query domains, return behavior, and the alternative tool. It is longer than a minimal description but the topic list and routing sentence earn their place by helping the agent formulate useful searches and avoid misuse.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description appropriately explains the return format: best-matching passages with page title and address. The parameters are fully covered by the schema, and the description supplies enough usage context, topical scope, and sibling differentiation for an agent to invoke this tool 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 both the query and limit parameters are already documented in the schema, including an example query and the default/maximum for limit. The description adds topical examples of what can be searched but does not add parameter-specific syntax or constraints beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline score 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 states a specific verb and resource — searches Proxy Mail QA's docs and guides — and enumerates concrete topic areas such as MCP client setup, REST/npm/Python usage, Playwright/Cypress/pytest waits, delivery troubleshooting, and plans. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_project, so an agent can tell which tool to select for documentation versus project-specific settings.

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 when-to-use guidance by listing the kinds of how-to, integration, troubleshooting, and plan/limit questions this tool handles. It also states when not to use it: 'For this project's own settings and limits, use get_project,' which directly routes the agent to the correct sibling.

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