FiveM Docs

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety needs no restating. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: it names the returned representation (Markdown/MDX text plus a citation URL) and warns that interactive component data is not included and lives on the linked website.

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, front-loaded with what is retrieved and then the prerequisite for the ID. Both sentences earn their place by carrying non-obvious 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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the return content, the source of the required ID, and a notable output limitation. Only edge-case behavior (invalid or stale IDs) is left unspecified, which is a minor gap at this complexity level.

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 0% (the lone 'id' parameter has only type and length bounds), so the description must supply meaning. It does: the ID must be an exact value previously returned by search, which is the single most important thing an agent needs to supply a valid argument. It does not describe format or error behavior for bad IDs.

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 (Retrieve) and resource (a public guide's Markdown/MDX text plus citation URL), and scopes it to public guides. It also implicitly separates itself from the sibling 'search' by requiring an exact ID that search produces, so an agent can pick between the two without opening either 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?

The phrase 'using an exact ID returned by search' gives clear operational context: this tool is used after search and consumes its output. There is no explicit exclusion or failure guidance (e.g., what happens on an unknown ID), so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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 behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context: AND semantics for all query terms, a bounded result count of ten, and that results are citable; it does not mention ranking or empty-result behavior.

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, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the follow-up action (fetch) last. Every sentence carries 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?

With no output schema, the description responsibly summarizes the return shape (up to ten citable results) and the natural next step. It is nearly complete for a simple one-parameter search tool, though query constraint details remain unstated.

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% for the single query parameter, so the description must carry the meaning. It usefully says 'short keywords' and 'all query terms must match', but omits the 200-character cap and minimum length enforced by the schema, leaving some constraint undisclosed.

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 ('Find public FiveM guides') plus the input style ('short keywords'), which is enough to distinguish it from the fetch sibling that reads a guide. An agent can tell what this does and what it returns without opening the 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 clear context: search with short keywords, all terms must match, and then use fetch to read a result. It routes to the alternative tool but never states when search is the wrong choice (e.g., when a direct known URL exists).

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