infosys_search

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

With readOnlyHint and destructiveHint already covering safety, the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: FTS5 bm25 ranking, [hits] excerpt format, DuckDuckGo fallback verified against the Infosys sitemap (TwinCAT 3 only), title/excerpt fetching, and a backend field indicating which path answered.

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 dense but front-loaded sentences with no wasted prose. The second sentence is long and packs several fallback details, but each detail is relevant.

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 output schema covers return values and annotations cover the safety profile. But with 0% parameter coverage and no sibling differentiation, key invocation details such as library filtering, web_fallback semantics, and limit behavior remain undocumented.

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 description documents none of the four parameters. An agent must infer the meaning of query, limit, library, and web_fallback from bare schema titles and defaults.

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: 'Full-text search over the indexed Infosys pages.' It also describes the fallback path. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from siblings like infosys_search_code or infosys_search_symbols.

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?

Mentions automatic fallback when the local index is empty, but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over sibling search tools. It also does not explain when to use the web_fallback or library parameters.

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