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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: search returns a ranked shortlist and NOT article bodies, full reads require a second call with slugs, max 3 slugs per call, English-only articles, and the no-argument/section listing behavior.

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?

Long but tightly structured and front-loaded: identity, use/don't-use, then a numbered two-step procedure. Every clause carries information (scope, sourcing of slugs, limit, language constraint) with no filler or restatement of the name.

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 description compensates by describing the return shape of a search (title, UI section, article summary, matched snippet) versus a full read. Combined with the usage routing and slug-sourcing rules, an agent has everything needed to call both modes 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 the schema documents all four parameters, but the description still adds cross-call semantics the schema cannot: that slugs should come from a previous search's 'slug', a recipe's docs[].slug, or a docs.axl.tech URL, and that query+slugs are the two halves of a workflow rather than independent filters.

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/read) and resource (AXL product documentation), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the API-side siblings by naming capability_map, list_recipes and get_operation_schema. An agent can tell immediately this is the product-docs tool, not the API tool.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('PRODUCT questions the API surface cannot answer: what a feature is, which flow it belongs to, business rules, UI naming') and when-not-to-use, routing API questions to named alternatives. The TWO STEPS block dictates the exact call sequence.

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