Search docs

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

Annotations already cover read-only/offline-safe semantics, but the description adds failure-mode behavior the annotations cannot express: an unrecognized package silently matches nothing, an empty result set is ambiguous between a real doc gap and a typo, and the recommended recovery is to retry with package omitted. It also contrasts this with validate_config's error behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then routing, then return/parameter mechanics, then edge-case behavior. Each paragraph earns its place, though the return-field enumeration partially duplicates the output schema and makes it slightly longer than strictly necessary.

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 3-parameter search tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description covers selection, alternatives, result handling, and the tricky silent-empty-result case. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and interpret its output.

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%, so the baseline is 3, and the description adds genuine value beyond the schema by explaining that query terms are ranked by occurrence (hence 'use specific terms') and by giving an operational rule for the package parameter when results come back empty. It does not restate the limit parameter's meaning, so it stops short of a 5.

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 ('Search the bundled Guard documentation') plus the return shape ('ranked, citable pages'). It also explicitly differentiates itself from siblings get_doc, config_fields, adapter_setup, and wire_agent by naming the question types each handles.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('how or why questions from documentation'), a paired follow-up tool (get_doc to read the full page), and concrete when-not-to-use routing ('Use config_fields instead for a setting's type and default, and adapter_setup or wire_agent for install and wiring steps'). Nothing is left to inference.

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