search_gdex_docs

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

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, non-open-world operation. The description adds useful scope and a brief return statement ('Returns matching skill sections'), but does not disclose ranking, result limits, pagination, or whether the search covers all docs or only selected sections.

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, front-loaded with the action and scope, and the return behavior follows immediately. There is no filler or redundant explanation.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with complete schema coverage and annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not help the agent choose between this search tool and the several sibling documentation retrieval tools, which is the main contextual gap.

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%, and the single parameter is already documented as a keyword query across GDEX skills and documentation. The description's phrase 'by keyword' mirrors the schema without adding syntax, matching behavior, or formatting details.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Search GDEX documentation and skill files by keyword,' and adds the return scope ('matching skill sections'). It is clearly distinct from trading siblings, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearby documentation siblings such as get_skill_file, get_sdk_pattern, or get_api_info.

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?

Usage is implied by 'by keyword' and the return of matching sections, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison against direct-fetch documentation tools like get_skill_file. An agent can infer this is the search entry point, but the routing decision is left largely unstated.

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