getToolDocs

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden; it discloses that both server and tool are required and shows the keying convention (server+tool) needed to address a doc record. It doesn't state whether unknown tool names error or return empty, which is the one behavioral gap for a lookup tool.

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, front-loaded with what is returned before the routing condition. The inline server/tool example partly duplicates the schema's own examples, a small redundancy, but nothing is padded.

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 two-parameter documentation lookup with a fully described schema and no output schema, the description says what comes back (param descriptions, types, examples), when to use it, and what it requires. An agent has everything needed to call it 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 both parameters are already documented with the same filesystem/read_file examples. The description repeats that both are required but adds no format, casing, or ambiguity-resolution guidance beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Get detailed documentation for a specific tool') and enumerates what the output contains (full parameter descriptions, types, usage examples). It also explicitly contrasts with the sibling readToolFile's compact signature, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening a schema.

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 an explicit trigger ('when the compact signature from readToolFile is not sufficient') and names the alternative tool that covers the other case. Nothing is left to inference about when to escalate from readToolFile to this tool.

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