search_docsSearch the Multilo product documentation by keyword. Returns matching pages with a one-line summary, the human URL, and a clean-Markdown URL suitable for fetching the full page. Use this first when asked how a Multilo feature works.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum results to return (1-25). Defaults to 10. | |
| query | Yes | Keywords, e.g. 'citation verification' or 'export docx'. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the return format (one-line summary, human URL, clean-Markdown URL) and implies a read-only search operation, but it does not mention edge cases like zero results or rate limits, leaving some behavioral aspects unspecified.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and return information. It includes usage guidance without redundancy, so every sentence earns its place and there is zero 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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description provides enough context for an agent to invoke search and interpret results. It even mentions the clean-Markdown URL for fetching the full page, implying an integration with get_page. It does not cover error handling or pagination, but these are not critical for a simple search tool.
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?
The schema already fully documents both parameters with 100% coverage, including an example for 'query' and constraints for 'limit.' The description adds no additional semantic detail beyond saying 'by keyword,' so the baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and identifies the resource ('Multilo product documentation'), and it clearly specifies what the tool returns. It distinguishes itself from siblings by positioning search as the first step before get_page or list_updates, making its purpose unambiguous.
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 explicitly instructs to 'Use this first when asked how a Multilo feature works,' providing clear usage context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools imply that get_page is for fetching a specific page after search, so the guidance is useful though not fully comprehensive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: fetching any page, listing changelog entries, and searching documentation. There is minimal overlap since get_page is generic while search_docs is specifically for locating docs.
All tool names follow a clear verb_noun pattern: get_page, list_updates, search_docs. The naming style is uniform and predictable.
Three tools is on the smaller side but appropriate for a focused server exposing Multilo's web content. Each tool has a clear role, and the count feels neither excessive nor trivial.
The tool set covers the main use cases: accessing pages, checking updates, and searching docs. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no dedicated tool to list all docs pages), but agents can work around them using get_page.