Cerca a la documentació de mapicgc-gl-js

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does well on scope (all packaged docs) and on output (relevant fragments with source file), and 'paraules clau' signals keyword rather than semantic matching. It says nothing about ranking, result volume beyond the limit param, or whether results are truncated, which matters for a search tool with no annotation coverage.

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 sentences with no waste: the first covers what is searched and what comes back, the second covers when to reach for it. The constraint/use case is front-loaded and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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?

With 2 flat parameters, an output-schema-less return value that is described, and no nested objects, the definition is nearly sufficient to call the tool correctly. The remaining gap is that it does not indicate result volume behaviour or that the tool covers only packaged docs of this one library, which would help an agent avoid expecting external or version-specific sources.

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% and both parameters carry their own descriptions including a default and an example for query, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's only contribution is the phrase 'paraules clau', which matches the query param without adding syntax or format detail. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb (cerca per paraules clau) and an explicit resource scope: the entire packaged documentation of mapicgc-gl-js, enumerated as README, API reference and examples. It also states the return shape (most relevant fragments plus source file). It stops short of naming the sibling it contrasts with (get_api, get_example), so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

Gives an explicit triggering condition: use it to find information when you don't know the exact name of a method or topic. That condition implicitly routes exact-name lookups to get_api/get_example, but those siblings are never named and no when-not guidance is given.

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