Buscar en la documentación de CyberArk/Idira

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the search is performed on a local index generated with 'npm run crawl', implying it may be a snapshot, and specifies the return format. However, it does not explicitly state staleness or update behavior, which is a minor gap.

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 is two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and mentions the sibling tool without unnecessary fluff. Every sentence 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 search tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the return fields (title, URL, snippet) and the source. It lacks minor details like no-results handling or query language nuances, but the essentials are covered for a straightforward use case.

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 input schema already covers both parameters with descriptions (query and count). The tool description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage but adds no extra value.

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 a local index of official CyberArk/Idira documentation and lists the return fields (title, URL, snippet). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_cyberark_doc_page by explicitly directing users to that tool for reading full page 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?

It provides explicit guidance: use this tool for searching relevant pages, and get_cyberark_doc_page for reading full, up-to-date content of a URL. This clearly indicates when to use which tool.

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