help

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the notion that the target is a 'help page' and discloses nothing about error behavior for bad paths, permissions, or size limits.

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?

A single short sentence that is front-loaded and free of waste. It is efficient, but the brevity comes at the cost of specification rather than being tightly informative.

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 values need not be explained, but the definition still omits how the `path` value is derived (presumably from `search` results) and when this tool is the right next step. For a one-parameter read tool this is thin, and the search sibling is never referenced.

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 0% for the single `path` parameter, so the description carries the burden and fails to provide any format hint — no indication of absolute vs. relative paths, a slug scheme, or an example drawn from search results. With only one parameter this is a modest but real gap that makes correct invocation guesswork.

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 gives a verb and resource ("Read the contents of a help page"), but the resource name is inconsistent with the tool name: read_document implies a document, while the description says "help page." It also does nothing to distinguish this from the sibling `search` tool, leaving an agent unsure whether fetching via search results is preferable.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus `search`, no prerequisites, and no mention of what happens when the path does not exist. The agent must infer that this is the follow-up call to a search result.

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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes nothing further — no ranking behavior, result limits, pagination, or match semantics — leaving the annotations to carry the full behavioral burden.

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?

At four words it is certainly front-loaded and free of waste. But the brevity crosses into under-specification rather than economy — the single sentence does not earn its place as sufficient documentation for a search entry point.

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 values need not be explained. Still, for a search tool the description omits query syntax, scope of the corpus, and result-ordering expectations — gaps an agent cannot fill from the schema or annotations.

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 0% for the single required parameter, so the description must compensate and does not. It never says whether query accepts free text, keywords, quoted phrases, or filter syntax, which is the main thing an agent needs to form a correct call.

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 pairs a verb with a resource ("Search in help pages"), so the general action is clear. However, it never defines the corpus being searched — help pages for what product, and whether it is full-text or keyword — and it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling read_document.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use search versus read_document, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The division of labor (search to discover, read_document to fetch) can only be inferred from the names.

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