nowyourlink documentation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds context about the specific types of documentation read, which is useful but not extensive. No contradictory information is present.

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 sentence of 10 words, front-loaded with the verb 'Read'. Every word contributes to the purpose, with 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?

The tool is simple: one parameter with an enum, and an output schema exists. The description, combined with the schema and annotations, fully covers what the tool does, the valid inputs, and the safety profile. No critical information 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does by naming the documentation categories (developer reference, authentication, versioning, privacy), which map directly to the enum paths. This adds semantic meaning beyond the raw path strings.

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 states a clear verb ('Read') and a specific resource (documentation pages for developer reference, authentication, versioning, and privacy). This distinctly differentiates it from the sibling 'search_docs', which implies searching rather than reading. The list of content types gives concrete scope.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus search_docs. The description only says what it does, not when to choose it over the alternative. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions that would route an agent to this tool.

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 cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint). The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying the search scope ('developer, authentication, versioning and privacy documentation') and the result nature ('best matching passages with their source page URL'). No contradiction.

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 with no wasted words. The main action and scope are front-loaded, and the return value is stated succinctly.

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?

Given the output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description is largely complete for a simple search tool. It could mention how to use this instead of read_docs_page, but that is a minor gap.

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 50%: query is described in the schema, limit is not. The description adds context to query via 'Full-text search' but does not explain the limit parameter. However, the limit is a simple integer with clear constraints and default in the schema, so the description's contribution is adequate but not extensive.

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 and resource: 'Full-text search' over a defined set of documentation areas. It also states what is returned ('best matching passages with their source page URL'), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool read_docs_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?

The description implies the tool is for searching documentation, and the sibling name suggests when to read a specific page, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. An agent must infer the alternative from context.

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