Search the Relay docs

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint=false, and the description corroborates that with 'bundled, offline', telling the agent results come from a local corpus with no network dependency. It also discloses the return shape (page, heading, docs path with anchor, excerpt), which the annotations do not cover. It says nothing about ranking/recency or corpus staleness, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose and corpus scope first, then return shape, then sibling routing. Every sentence carries distinct information with no redundancy or filler.

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, so the description's enumeration of returned fields ('page, heading, docs path with anchor and an excerpt') is genuinely necessary and present. With only two fully documented parameters and annotations covering the safety profile, nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters (query, limit) are already fully documented in the schema, including the 1-10 range and default. The description adds no syntax, format, or query-construction guidance beyond what the schema states, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Search Relay's public docs') and scopes what is searchable (how-to, auth, errors, limits, retries, webhooks, files, pricing rules), plus the offline/bundled nature. It explicitly distinguishes itself from two siblings (get_model, search_models), so an agent can route correctly without opening any schema.

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?

It gives explicit routing: 'For a model's input fields use get_model instead; to find a model use search_models.' That resolves the main ambiguity against siblings. It stops short of stating when-not to use this tool (e.g. that it does not cover private/internal docs beyond the listed topics), so it is clear context without full exclusions.

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