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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds value by disclosing that the tool returns an answer with citations, which is behavioral context beyond the annotations. It doesn't mention rate limits or result limits, but the openWorldHint and readOnlyHint cover the main behavioral concerns.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds the key behavioral detail (answer with citations). Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy with the title or 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 simple search tool with one parameter, full annotation coverage, and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It tells the agent what it does, what it returns, and the URL of the documentation. The only minor gap is not specifying the format of the answer or any limitations, but these are not critical for a read-only search tool.

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 already documents the single 'query' parameter. The description adds that the query is 'free-form' and that the answer includes citations, which slightly enriches the parameter semantics. However, it doesn't add format or syntax details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is 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 clearly states the tool's function: searching Unified.to API and MCP documentation and returning an answer with citations for a free-form question. It specifies the resource (docs.unified.to) and the action (search and return an answer), making it distinct from sibling tools that manage connections, webhooks, or environments.

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 implies usage for free-form questions about Unified.to documentation, which is clear context. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but given the sibling tools are all CRUD operations for resources, the usage context is sufficiently clear without needing exclusions.

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