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

The description discloses the return format (section ids with snippets) and the degenerate-input behavior, adding real context on top of readOnlyHint=true. It omits ranking/matching semantics and any limits on result count, which matters since there is no output schema.

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 dense sentences: purpose first, then the read_doc handoff and the empty-query fallback. No filler and nothing buried.

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 one-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, result shape, the follow-up tool, and the no-argument mode. An agent can invoke it correctly without opening anything else.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already supplies example queries, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning the schema lacks: an empty query returns the full table of contents, which is a behavioral contract for the parameter's default, not a restatement.

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 (keyword search) and resource (Trickl partner docs) plus the covered surface areas (platform API, webhooks, embed widget), which lets an agent tell it apart from read_doc and the goal/test siblings. The return shape (section ids with snippets) is named in the same breath.

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?

Explicitly routes the next step to read_doc for reading a single section, and defines the zero-argument mode ('leave query empty for the full table of contents'). It does not state when NOT to search (e.g., when you already know the section id), so it stops just short of full when/when-not coverage.

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