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

Annotations already declare the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds useful context about chip-model specificity and the 'cited evidence' aspect of the return, but it does not disclose more about retrieval behavior or limitations beyond that.

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 short, front-loaded with the core purpose, and adds a necessary usage constraint in the second sentence. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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?

The description covers the main purpose and the key chip/register requirement, and an output schema exists to document return values. However, it is incomplete for the optional parameters and does not position the tool relative to its siblings, so an agent may not fully understand how to use query and top_k 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 0%, so the description must carry the burden. It clarifies the role of 'chip' and 'register' implicitly, but it completely ignores the 'query' and 'top_k' parameters, leaving their purpose and interaction with the 'cited evidence' behavior unclear.

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 states a specific verb ('Retrieve') and a specific resource ('definition and cited evidence for one STM32 register'). It clearly indicates this is about a single register, which distinguishes it from the broader search siblings, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 a clear usage precondition: a concrete chip model is required to avoid mixing similarly named registers. However, it does not provide guidance about when to prefer this tool over the sibling tools search_stm32_docs or search_peripheral, leaving that to inference.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by noting chip-specific scoping and citations, but it does not disclose operational details such as pagination, failure modes, or result boundaries beyond the annotations.

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 efficient sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource and packs the scope and citation behavior into one clause.

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 read-only search tool, the annotations and output schema cover safety and return-value concerns. However, the description still leaves parameter semantics for query/top_k and usage differentiation from siblings under-specified, creating moderate gaps for correct invocation.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the semantics of query or top_k. It only loosely implies that chip and peripheral are the search scope; the free-text query and result-limit parameters remain effectively undocumented.

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 action ('Search'), the resource ('one STM32 peripheral'), and key constraints ('chip-specific scope and citations'). This is specific enough to distinguish it from broader doc or register lookups, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like search_stm32_docs or get_register.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus search_stm32_docs or get_register. The phrase 'one STM32 peripheral' implies a narrow scope, but the description never states conditions, exclusions, or alternatives.

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

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

Beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations, the description reveals critical behavior: it returns source snippets, page-level citations, model scope, warnings, and an explicit abstention state, and it explicitly does not generate an answer. This helps the agent set expectations about abstention and citation-style output. No contradiction with annotations.

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 three tightly written sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action, then provides filter guidance and a clear behavioral boundary. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description covers the main invocation needs: what it searches, what it returns, and how to tighten filters. The mention of an abstention state covers no-match behavior implicitly. A slight gap is not explaining how register/peripheral filters relate to the siblings, but that is not essential for a correct call.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions chip, family, and document_type as useful filters, but does not explain query, top_k, register, or peripheral semantics. Titles and defaults give minimal clues, so the description only partially compensates for the missing schema documentation.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search STM32 datasheets and reference manuals and return cited evidence.' It also clarifies what the tool is not ('does not generate an answer'), which distinguishes it from generative Q&A tools. Sibling tools get_register and search_peripheral are narrower, so the broad scope is enough to differentiate.

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 actionable guidance: 'Use chip/family/document_type filters whenever known,' which helps an agent improve result relevance. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, but the purpose clearly implies this is the tool for evidence-based documentation searches. No misleading or missing context.

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