Youanai Docs

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context beyond them: the output is Markdown and only public pages are reachable, which tells the agent what it will get back and what 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and return format, then input forms, then the access restriction. Nothing is wasted or redundant beyond the intentional restatement of the accepted formats.

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, non-destructive read tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what is fetched, the shape of the result (Markdown), accepted input forms, and the public-only limitation.

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 single parameter's schema description already documents both accepted forms ('https://youanai.com/pricing or /pricing'). The description repeats the same examples without adding syntax rules, normalization behavior, or error cases, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb (fetch), a scoped resource (one public youanai.com page), and the return format (Markdown). It implicitly separates itself from search_docs by emphasizing a single page, but never names or contrasts the sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the accepted inputs (a URL or path) and the 'only public pages' constraint, but there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not guidance and no pointer to search_docs for discovery-style queries.

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 openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value by scoping the corpus to public pages only and disclosing the returned fields (title, url, description, snippet), though it says nothing about ranking behavior, empty-result handling, or snippet length.

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 well-formed sentence with the corpus scope and return shape front-loaded. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant or padded.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, corpus, and returned fields, which is nearly everything needed. The remaining gap is the relationship to fetch_page and what happens when no matches are found.

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 fully documented including bounds and default, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema states, making the baseline 3 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?

Names a specific verb (Search) and resource (Youanai's public pages), then enumerates the corpus (products, pricing, industries, blog, release notes, legal) and the return shape. An agent can tell this is a ranked retrieval operation over a fixed public corpus, which is clearly distinct from fetching a single page.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers 'use this when you need to find pages by keyword.' There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over the sibling fetch_page (e.g., search first, then fetch the chosen URL), and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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