Financier docs

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

Annotations already cover the read-only and idempotent behavior, lowering the burden on the description. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying the markdown return format and listing the supported paths, which is valuable beyond the schema.

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 tight sentence states the operation, output format, and accepted paths with no filler. The most important information is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter, read-only tool, the description covers what it returns and what inputs are valid. It does not address invalid-path handling or error behavior, but those are not critical for correct selection and invocation here.

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 schema only defines path as a string with no description or enum, so schema coverage is 0%. The description fully compensates by enumerating the valid paths, making the single required parameter actionable.

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 specific action ('Read one documentation page as markdown') and a concrete resource scope via the path list. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling search_docs, since reading a known page by path is not searching.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: fetch a specific documentation page by path. However, it never mentions search_docs as the alternative for discovery or states when not to use read_doc, so the routing guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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?

ReadOnly and idempotent are already conveyed by annotations. The description adds that the tool returns paths, not content, and that these paths are intended as input to read_doc. This is useful behavioral 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?

Two short sentences with no filler: the action and the output integration are both front-loaded. Every word contributes.

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-only search tool with annotations and a sibling, the description covers the key information: what it searches, and what form the result takes. It omits edge-case behavior like empty results or result caps, but that is not essential for a minimal call.

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 schema provides no description for query (0% coverage), so the description carries the burden. It does associate query with the matching process, but adds no detail on query syntax, matching semantics, or result limits. It is minimally adequate.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('documentation pages and sections') and states the result is paths for read_doc, distinguishing it from the sibling. An agent immediately knows this tool searches for documentation rather than reading content.

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 'Returns paths to pass to read_doc' makes the intended workflow explicit: use search_docs to locate documentation, then read_doc to consume the content. It does not spell out when not to use it, but the read_doc link provides clear context.

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