get_documentation

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'via Pepe' and deliverables but does not disclose what Pepe is, how results are returned, whether any side effects exist, or any limitations. The behavioral information is minimal and vague.

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 redundancy. The main action is front-loaded, and the query-format guidance is placed immediately after. It is efficient and every sentence 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?

The one-parameter tool is simple, and the description effectively covers the required query structure. However, with no output schema and overlapping sibling tools, it lacks clarity on return format, output shape, and decision boundaries between this and similar tools.

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 100% with a detailed parameter description and example. The tool description adds a concise mapping (stack, failure, deliverables) but mostly repeats what the schema already communicates, so the marginal value is limited.

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 tool searches official documentation and examples via Pepe, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing a structured CPQO query format and deliverables like snippets and breaking changes, though it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 when to use the tool (need official docs/examples) and provides detailed how-to guidance on formatting the query in CPQO. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings like search, deep_research, or chat_perplexity, nor any exclusions.

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