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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond those annotations: the meaning of score (relative within one answer, rare query words in titles weigh most, pages matching every word rank higher), the fact that the index is refreshed hourly, and the fact that searching requires no token. These go beyond what annotations convey.

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 compact and front-loaded: the most operationally important fact (no token needed, use before guessing) comes first, followed by the scope list, then return format/usage of results, then scoring semantics, then index freshness. Every sentence earns its place; no filler or redundancy with the schema.

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 an output schema, the description is complete: it explains the search subject scope, the result contents, what to do when a snippet is insufficient, how the relevance scoring works, the freshness of the index, and the auth situation (no token). Nothing needed to select or invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining what kinds of queries are appropriate ('environment variables', 'layero.json node version', 'rollback', 'monorepo root directory') and clarifying the Russian/English matching behavior. The score semantics also indirectly help the agent interpret the relevance of the returned results. It does not repeat schema field mechanics, so it earns above baseline.

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 names a specific resource (docs.layero.ru), a specific verb (search), and states its exact scope: platform documentation covering build settings, layero.json, environments, preview URLs, custom domains, env vars, runtime apps, Data API, CLI flags, and JSON events. It is unambiguously distinct from siblings — all other tools are domain/deploy/data-api operations, none of which is a documentation search.

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 description gives an explicit usage rule: 'Use it before guessing how the platform works,' followed by a concrete list of topics to search. It also tells the agent what to do with the result — open the returned URL with its own fetch tool when the snippet is insufficient — which resolves the ambiguity around the lack of a fetch capability inside this tool.

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