Search the Open77 API and guides

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: it returns the build it answers for, and it explains that a query containing 'server' or 'client' automatically applies that filter. No contradictions with annotations.

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 efficiently structured: purpose stated first, then usage guidance, then a behavioral note. No wasted words, and it front-loads the key information an agent needs to decide whether to call this tool.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it searches, when to use it, how to refine with runtime, and what it returns (the build). It doesn't detail the result format, but given that full-text tools are available for details, this is sufficient.

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 75% (3 of 4 params have descriptions). The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the significance of the runtime parameter and the dual-contract issue for names like RegisterCommand, plus the auto-filtering behavior of the query. This is more than the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 identifies the tool as a lexical search over multiple Open77 resource types (natives, guides, events, permissions, FiveM equivalents) and explicitly differentiates it from the full-text tools open77_api/open77_guide by instructing to use it first.

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 gives explicit guidance: 'Use it first; then open77_api / open77_guide for the full text' and explains when to pass the runtime parameter with concrete examples of names that have different contracts per runtime. It also notes that the query itself can auto-apply the server/client filter, making usage conditions clear.

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