SYMONE documentation

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds return-format detail (full Markdown text) and the notable input flexibility that an https://symone.fr URL is also acceptable, which is genuine context beyond the annotations.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and return type, with the path-provenance detail following. No filler or redundancy.

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 tool with full annotation coverage, the description covers purpose, input provenance, accepted input forms, and return format. Behavior for an invalid path or missing page is not mentioned, a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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%, giving a baseline of 3, but the description adds real meaning: the accepted value is specifically what search_docs returns, and a full symone.fr URL works as well — the URL form is absent from the schema's examples.

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 (return) and resource (full Markdown text of one SYMONE documentation page), with scope bounded to a single page. It also names the sibling tool that produces the path, so an agent can immediately distinguish it from search_docs.

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?

Clearly positions itself downstream of search_docs ("path returned by search_docs"), which tells the agent when to reach for it. It stops short of an explicit exclusion (e.g. 'do not use for listing pages'), so it is not a full when/when-not statement.

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 read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds useful context beyond those annotations: it searches public SYMONE documentation and returns best-matching sections with document path and URL, which helps the agent understand the output shape.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. It states the resource, scope, examples of covered content, and return format efficiently.

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, the description usefully explains that matching sections are returned with document path and URL. Parameter details are fully covered by the schema, and annotations cover the safety profile; only minor guidance about search-vs-fetch behavior is absent.

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 documented in the input schema, including defaults and bounds. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the schema does the required work and baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource: search the public SYMONE documentation, with enumerated content areas and return format. The scope is clear enough to distinguish it from a fetch operation, but it does not explicitly name or contrast with the sibling fetch_doc tool.

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 implies usage for documentation questions and keyword searches, but it does not explicitly say when to use search_docs versus fetch_doc or when not to use it. No alternatives or exclusions are stated.

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