spring_search_concepts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discharges it well: it discloses the week-long single-page index cache, that headings are only harvested for queries titles cannot answer and at most 4 pages per call, that heading results are cached under their own key so repeats cost zero requests, and the exact max_tokens truncation contract (len(text)//4 budget, whole hits dropped past it, 'truncated' flag set). It also documents the failure shape {"error", "suggestion"}.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first line and each subsequent sentence is about a distinct concern (matching surface, result fields, parameter behavior, caching, error shape). It runs long and the caching paragraph, while useful, is the least essential, but there is little outright 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?

There is no output schema, yet the description enumerates the returned fields (title, url, section, version, score, matched_on, excerpt) and the error payload, so an agent knows both what it gets back and how failures surface. For a 4-parameter, annotation-free tool this is complete.

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 must compensate and it does for all four parameters: version (docs line, omitted = latest with the resolved version reported back), limit (caps hits, 1-25), and max_tokens (budget semantics and estimation formula), with query self-evident. This adds substantive meaning beyond the bare schema titles.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Find where a Spring Boot topic is documented: section titles and headings') and explains the matching surface (page titles plus h2/h3/h4 headings), which is far more than a restatement of the name. It stops short of distinguishing itself from close siblings such as spring_reference or spring_guides, which an agent could plausibly confuse with a documentation-lookup tool.

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?

Use is implied clearly by the opening line and the worked 'data jpa' example, and the version-omitted default is spelled out. However, there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternative guidance and no exclusions, so selection against siblings like java_search or spring_reference 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.