search_runbooks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, closed-corpus read. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral instruction — cite results by their `source` id — which tells the agent how to attribute results. It says nothing about ranking, corpus scope, or what happens when no runbooks match, so it adds less than it could.

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 purpose and followed by the citation instruction — no filler. It is efficient but leans so terse that meaning is lost rather than compressed.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but with 0% schema coverage the description should at minimum define `k` and say what the search operates over. For a 2-parameter tool with an undocumented parameter, this leaves a real gap before invocation.

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%, so the description carries the full burden and does not meet it: the `k` parameter (default 3) is never explained or even acknowledged, leaving the agent to guess whether it means result count or something else. Only `query` is self-evident from its name and required status.

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+resource: 'Search operational runbooks.' That is clearly distinguishable from the job-oriented siblings (submit_job, get_job_status, list_job_errors), so an agent can select it without ambiguity. It stops short of saying what kind of search (semantic vs keyword) or what a runbook covers here.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, but the sibling set is entirely job-management tools, so the choice is effectively implied by the purpose statement. Nothing names an alternative or a precondition for searching runbooks.

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