searchGravvDocs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns ranked pages with excerpts, that the docs contain ordering/prerequisites/corridor rules not in schemas, and that it can help explain failures. It does not discuss rate limits or error behavior, but for a search tool the disclosed behavioral traits are sufficient.

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 concise and well-structured: it opens with the core purpose, then gives usage timing and alternatives, and ends with a follow-up action. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 simplicity (3 parameters, no nested objects, no output schema) and the presence of a sibling for full text, the description covers purpose, usage, return format, and follow-up behavior. It is fully complete for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 provides 100% description coverage for all parameters, including examples for query. The description does not add additional parameter-specific semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the Gravv documentation with specific resource types (integration guides, recipes, API reference) and page count (177 pages). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool getGravvDocPage by explicitly indicating that this tool returns ranked excerpts and that getGravvDocPage should be used for full text.

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 gives explicit timing: use before implementing any Gravv integration and whenever a call fails with an unclear error. It also names the alternative (getGravvDocPage) as a follow-up step, providing clear when-to-use and when-to-use-other guidance.

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