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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description still adds value beyond them by disclosing the output shape ("ranked excerpts with public URLs"), which tells the agent to expect multiple partial hits rather than a full document. It stops short of saying what happens with zero results or how ranking is derived.

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?

Three short sentences, each doing distinct work: purpose, return shape, then usage routing. The exclusion is placed last where it reads as a boundary rather than burying the primary use case.

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 an output schema present, the return values need not be explained, and the annotations fully cover the safety and idempotency profile, so the description is close to complete for a two-parameter search tool. Minor gaps remain around empty-result behavior and any index coverage limits, which an agent would not know from the structured fields alone.

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 100% — both query and top_k carry their own descriptions with ranges and examples — so the baseline of 3 applies. The description implies queries are natural-language documentation questions but adds no syntax, format, or tuning guidance beyond what the schema already states.

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 verb and resource ("Search Sorted Travel developer documentation") and scopes it to API, MCP, SDK, auth, and integration questions, plus states the return shape ("ranked excerpts with public URLs"). It never names the siblings get_doc_page or list_doc_pages, so the distinction from "retrieve a single page" or "enumerate pages" is left implicit rather than stated.

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?

It gives an explicit use condition ("how-to and reference questions") and an explicit exclusion with the alternative to use instead ("Do not use this tool to rank destinations or check visas — call the product MCP instead"). Both the when and the when-not are stated, which is the strongest form of routing guidance.

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