query-documentation-resources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, covering safety and scope. The description adds useful context about the types of documentation retrieved (snippets, screenshots, guides) and query constraints (focused, single-topic), which helps the agent understand behavioral traits beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, or response format details.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose and followed by specific guidelines. Every sentence adds value (e.g., content types, query focus, avoidance of complexity). It could be slightly more concise by combining some clauses, but overall it's efficient with minimal waste.

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 tool's moderate complexity (single parameter, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, usage, and behavioral context adequately, though it lacks details on output format or error handling. With annotations providing safety and scope info, and schema covering parameters, the description fills most gaps, but could benefit from mentioning response structure or limitations.

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%, with the parameter 'query' fully documented in the schema. The description adds some semantic context by specifying that queries should be 'focused on one specific documentation topic or question' and 'avoid complex multi-purpose queries', which clarifies intent beyond the schema's technical details. However, it does not provide additional syntax or format guidance, so 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 purpose with specific verbs ('retrieve documentation snippets') and resources ('Microsoft Clarity documentation'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'query-analytics-dashboard' which handles analytics data rather than documentation. It specifies the content types (step-by-step screenshots, setup guides, features, etc.) and scope (one specific topic/question).

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool ('for finding answers to user questions') and includes explicit usage guidance ('query should be focused on one specific documentation topic or question', 'avoid complex multi-purpose queries'). However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings, though the distinction from 'query-analytics-dashboard' is implied by the content focus.

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