js_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and largely meets it: it discloses the ranking precedence (exact name > startswith > substring in name > substring in path), the AND-semantics of query tokens, the fact that results come from a cached index, and a staleness field. The unavailability path is spelled out with a suggested retry, though read-only behavior is only implicit.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by matching semantics and then return shape. The dense precedence chain is information-carrying rather than filler, and no sentence is redundant.

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, but the description documents both success and failure response shapes, including the stale flag and the retry suggestion. The only material gap for a two-parameter tool is the unexplained `limit` parameter.

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. It adds real meaning for `query` by explaining token matching and ranking, but the `limit` parameter (default 8) is never mentioned anywhere, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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 (Search) and resource corpus (MDN Web Docs and the TypeScript handbook), plus the matching key (name/path), so an agent knows exactly what this does. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling js_docs, which is the closest-looking alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the name/path framing tells the agent this is for lookup-by-identifier, and the failure case says to retry later when the index is unavailable. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to js_docs or js_status, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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