search_apic_docs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the output format (titles, snippets, URLs), which is helpful, but it says nothing about match semantics, result ordering, no-match behavior, or pagination. The description is not misleading, but it is thin on behavioral detail.

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 description consists of two short, purposeful sentences. The first identifies the action and resource; the second specifies the return content. There is no filler or redundant text.

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 relatively simple search tool, the description covers the core contract: what it searches and what it returns. The schema documents the parameters, and the output shape is stated. It lacks an explicit pointer to sibling tools, but the agent can still invoke this tool confidently without additional context.

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%: all parameters (query, limit, start) already have descriptive comments. The description adds no additional parameter-level guidance, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 clearly states the operation ('Search'), the target resource ('IBM API Connect 12.1.0 documentation'), and the expected result shape ('matching topics with titles, snippets, and URLs'). This makes it easily distinguishable from sibling tools read_apic_doc and get_apic_toc, which imply different operations.

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: when you need to search the API Connect 12.1.0 documentation. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when to use read_apic_doc or get_apic_toc instead, nor any exclusions or conditions. The usage context is clear but not fully stated.

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