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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context: it searches a large indexed corpus, returns excerpts, and includes source URLs and endpoint references. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them, though it does not cover edge behavior like empty results.

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 tight sentences: scope, output shape, and usage priority. There is no filler or repetition of schema details, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 100% schema coverage, read-only annotations, and no output schema, this description fully covers what an agent needs: what is searched, what results look like, and when to use it first. No critical operational detail is missing.

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 meaningful descriptions for query, k, and region including examples, defaults, and ranges. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies—the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Semantic search over the complete MarketCheck API documentation...'. It also states the return value ('most relevant excerpts, each with its source page URL and endpoint'), making the tool's function clear and distinct from direct lookup siblings.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this first for any question about endpoints, parameters, authentication, errors, plans, or terms.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the priority framing strongly routes an agent to this tool before direct lookups.

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