search_atproto_docs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses 'Search is hybrid (keyword + semantic), so exact identifiers like NSIDs ... match reliably', which is a useful behavioral trait beyond the obvious read-only nature of searching. It does not mention auth requirements or rate limits but still adds meaningful context.

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 moderately long but every sentence serves a purpose: purpose, usage, search behavior, and parameter details. The parameter explanations are structured clearly. It earns its length, though it could be slightly tightened without losing value.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers the essential contexts: what it searches, when to use it, how the search behaves, and what each parameter does. It does not repeat return values (already in output schema) and is complete for a search tool, though it could mention default source coverage or result ordering.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It comprehensively explains every parameter, including the exact allowed values for source ('atproto-website', 'bsky-docs', 'lexicons', 'cookbook'), content_type ('guide', 'spec', 'blog', 'reference', 'example'), and the range/default for limit ('1-20, default 10'). This is exceptional added 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 opens with 'Search across all AT Protocol documentation, lexicons, Bluesky API docs, and cookbook examples', which uses a specific verb ('search') and resource scope ('all AT Protocol documentation') that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_lexicons and search_bsky_api by its comprehensive coverage.

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 states 'Use this tool to find information about AT Protocol concepts, endpoints, data structures, authentication, federation, and implementation patterns', giving clear guidance on when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of a perfect 5.

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