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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior, so the description is free to spend its words on ranking semantics: exact keyword first, then title and keyword-prefix, then body text. That ranking order is genuinely useful for interpreting result order, though nothing is said about empty results or how many hits come back beyond the schema's limit.

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 ranking, then facet syntax, then the handoff to help_get — a sensible order. The facet list is long but earns its length because those tokens change invocation; only 'like in game' is 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?

With no output schema, the note that it returns ids for help_get covers the return contract adequately for a search tool. The one real gap is the limit parameter, whose behavior and default of 10 are never addressed in prose.

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 67% and the weakest spot (limit) has no description anywhere, which the description also ignores. In exchange, it explains the query syntax in real depth — leading facet words (spell, skill, race, class, command, zone, religion, clan) plus RU/UA forms — which is semantics the schema does not carry.

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+resource ('Find help articles') and immediately scopes how it matches (keyword, title, or article text), which cleanly distinguishes it from help_list and help_categories that do not search by text. An agent can tell what this returns without opening the 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?

The closing 'Returns ids for help_get' makes the follow-up workflow explicit and implies this is the entry point for lookup by content. It does not say when to prefer help_list or help_categories instead, so the routing against those siblings is left implicit.

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