search_polars_api

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

The description discloses the search behavior (exact match then fuzzy fallback), which is useful but limited. There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or the scope of the search (e.g., whether it searches all API docs or only specific components).

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: two sentences that front-load the purpose and add a key behavior detail. Every sentence is informative with no waste.

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 has 4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on parameter meanings, the format of results, and the scope of the search. An agent would struggle to use this tool effectively without additional context.

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 four parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain any of them. The agent must infer that 'components' and 'methods' are search filters and 'max_results' limits results, but no specifics are provided. This is a significant gap for a search tool.

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 Polars API methods and documentation, with a specific verb 'Search' and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_polars_components (which lists) and get_polars_version (which gets a version), and adds detail about exact match followed by fuzzy fallback.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. Usage is implied as a search function, but there are no exclusions or references to sibling tools. For example, it doesn't clarify that this should be used when looking for specific API methods, while list_polars_components is for listing all components.

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