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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the bar is lower. The description still adds value beyond them by stating the return shape ("best matches with a snippet") and flagging that full content requires a second get_doc call — information the annotations do not carry.

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 tight sentences with zero filler; the resource and scope are front-loaded and the alternative tool is named last. Every clause earns its place.

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 read-only search tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers scope, return form and the follow-up path. It does not mention result limits or the language default, but those live in the schema, so the gap is minor.

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% and all three parameters (query, limit, language) are documented inline, including the enum. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond reiterating the search scope, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (searches) and resource (docket's help articles), enumerates the topical scope (time tracking, tickets, budgets, invoicing, Jira, AI connections), and names the sibling retrieval tool get_doc. An agent can distinguish this from search_tickets/search_projects/search_customers without opening any schema.

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?

"Read one in full with get_doc" gives a clear two-step workflow and routes the follow-up call to the right sibling. The topical scope implicitly says when to use it (help/documentation questions rather than customer or ticket data), but there is no explicit exclusion clause naming the other search_* siblings.

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