Search Documentation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention the fuzzy/keyword search behavior and the scope of documents, which adds some context beyond the schema. However, it does not disclose whether results are ranked, any limits, or the nature of the output beyond what the output schema implies. It is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and scope. Both the search type (fuzzy/keyword) and the target resources are included without any fluff or redundancy. There is no wasted wording.

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?

The tool is a simple search operation with two parameters (one required) and an output schema, so the description is largely sufficient. It clearly states what is being searched. It does not mention pagination or result details, but the output schema likely covers those. The low complexity and existing schema make this adequately 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 100%, so both parameters (query, category) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter usage or semantics beyond what the schema provides, 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 clearly states the action (search), the resource (OpenWebNet protocol specifications and Home Assistant MyHOME guides), and the nature (fuzzy and keyword). This is a specific verb+resource and is distinguishable from sibling tools like get_who_spec or list_who_catalog, which are targeted lookups rather than a general documentation search.

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 implies that this tool is for searching documentation, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus the more specific sibling tools, nor does it provide exclusions or alternatives. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer usage, but no explicit guidance is given.

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