Financier docs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond the schema: the output is markdown, and it enumerates the set of valid documentation paths, which is behavioral detail the agent could not otherwise obtain.

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, zero filler, and the core action plus return format is front-loaded before the path list. Every clause earns its place.

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-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, return format, and valid inputs, while annotations cover the safety profile. Only the invalid-path or error behavior is left unstated, 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 description coverage is 0% and the single 'path' parameter has no enum, so the description must carry the burden — and it does by listing the eight valid path values. It adds real meaning beyond the bare string type, though it does not say what happens for an invalid path.

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 ('Read one documentation page') plus the return format (markdown), which is precise. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling search_docs, so an agent must infer that this is for a known path rather than discovery.

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: the enumeration of concrete paths suggests it is for direct page retrieval, and search_docs covers discovery, but neither the when-to-use condition nor the alternative is stated. Nothing is misleading, but nothing routes the agent explicitly either.

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.