docs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond them: the return is a Markdown representation, and only canonical PUBLIC pages are readable, hinting that non-public or non-canonical paths will fail.

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?

Two short sentences, zero waste, with the core action front-loaded before the path-provenance note. Every clause carries information.

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?

Output schema exists so return shape needn't be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description still supplies the two things neither structured field covers: output format (Markdown) and where valid inputs come from. Nothing essential for correct invocation 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% and the schema already specifies the path format (canonical site path, no domain/query string). The description adds meaning beyond the schema by telling the agent where valid path values originate (search_docs or the sitemap), which helps avoid hallucinated paths.

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 ("Read") and resource ("Markdown representation of one canonical public Hyperwave page"), with scope qualifiers (one, canonical, public). It also implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling search_docs by positioning that tool as the source of paths rather than a reader of content.

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?

"Paths come from search_docs or the sitemap" clearly establishes the prerequisite workflow and routes the agent to the sibling for discovery versus this tool for retrieval. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it (e.g., when a search snippet already suffices), so no explicit exclusions.

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 read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by scoping the corpus to "published" documentation and clarifying that no synthesized/generated advice is produced. It omits pagination behavior, which the cursor parameter implies exists.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core action and corpus scope front-loaded and the behavioral boundary second. Every clause 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is unnecessary, and annotations cover the safety profile. The main remaining gap is paging semantics (how cursor and limit interact), which neither the description nor the schema explains.

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 only 33% (only query is documented), so the description carries the compensating burden but adds nothing about limit or cursor. The cursor/pagination parameter in particular is undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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 (Search) and resource (Hyperwave's published wavetable documentation) plus the return shape (source URLs and excerpts). It does not explicitly name or contrast with the sibling get_document, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

"Retrieval only; no generated advice" draws a behavioral boundary, and the tool's retrieval role implies a search-then-fetch flow with get_document, but that workflow is never stated and no when-not-to-use condition is given.

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