Vooks docs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: resolution is allowlist-limited ('Only documents Vooks publishes for agents resolve'), which explains failure modes for off-list URIs. It stops short of saying what an error or miss looks like, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, then the constraint, then the selection criterion. No redundant restatement of the title or schema.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't describe return values, and it covers the remaining essentials for a single-parameter read tool: provenance of the URI, allowlist restriction, and when to prefer it over search_docs.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds provenance the schema only hints at: the URI must come from search_docs and must be one Vooks publishes. That is meaningful constraint information beyond the schema's format example.

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 and resource ('Fetch one published Vooks document whole') plus scope ('by the URI search_docs returned'), which cleanly separates it from list_docs and search_docs. An agent can tell from the first clause that this is a whole-document retrieval, not a search.

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 says when to use it ('when you need the complete text rather than an excerpt') and implicitly routes excerpt/ discovery needs to search_docs, which supplies the URI. It also states a hard when-not: 'it cannot be pointed at an arbitrary URL', so the agent knows not to pass external links.

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, non-destructive, and a closed world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that the listing is exhaustive ('every document this server can read') and that summaries are included, but it does not disclose ordering, size limits, or what happens if no documents exist. With annotations carrying the behavioral load, this is adequate but thin.

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 with zero filler; the exhaustive-listing scope is front-loaded and the usage hint follows immediately. Nothing could be removed without losing routing 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?

For a read-only, zero-required-parameter listing tool with an output schema and 100% schema coverage, the description covers purpose and routing adequately. Minor omissions such as ordering or behavior with an empty server are low-risk given the output schema defines the return shape.

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 single parameter has full schema description coverage including its default and the effect of passing false, so the schema does the work. The description's mention of a 'one-line summary of each' echoes the default behavior of include_summaries but adds no syntax or override detail beyond the schema.

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 and resource ('List every document this server can read') plus the scope constraint that it returns the complete set with a one-line summary each. It also contrasts itself with search_docs by framing itself as the browse-everything option, so an agent can distinguish it from the sibling without opening a schema.

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?

Gives explicit routing guidance: 'Call it first if you would rather choose a document than search across all of them,' which names the decision criterion against search_docs. It stops short of stating when the full listing is a bad idea (e.g., very large document sets or latency concerns), so no exclusion is present.

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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: results include an excerpt around the match, and the stated intent is to quote Vooks rather than paraphrase from memory. It stops short of describing ranking or what happens when nothing matches.

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 sentences, no filler. The corpus scope comes first, the return shape and quoting rationale second, and the sibling hand-off last — a well-ordered, front-loaded structure.

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 and annotations are rich, so the description only needs to cover scope, return character and alternative routing — all of which it does. For a two-parameter read tool, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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 both query and limit already documented including examples and the default of 5. The description adds no further semantics about matching behavior or how limit interacts with result quality, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb 'Search' plus an explicit enumeration of the corpus (agent index, pricing page, site overview, Public Catalog API guide), which tells the agent exactly what is searchable. It is clearly distinguishable from fetch_doc, which retrieves a whole document rather than matching excerpts.

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 agent to fetch_doc when an excerpt is insufficient, which is the key decision boundary for this tool family. It does not mention list_docs or state when searching is the wrong choice, so the guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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