public_help_center_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only repeats the HTTP path and a 'Help center' tag. It says nothing about authentication expectations for a 'public' endpoint, pagination, result ordering, or what happens when the slug is invalid. The 'public' path segment is the only faint signal.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, but a large share of the text is raw endpoint and tag metadata rather than agent-facing explanation. It is not padded, yet what is there earns little.

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 and no annotations, so the description is the only source of behavioral and return-shape information, and it provides neither. For a four-parameter search endpoint, the definition is under-specified.

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 the schema already documents q, log, slug, and locale including the locale fallback behavior. The description adds no meaning beyond that, 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 Public Help Center'), so an agent can tell it searches within a help center. However, it does not distinguish itself from the related help-center tools (article lookup, tree browsing), so the scope boundary is only implied.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of when not to use it, and no mention of an alternative tool for browsing versus searching. The only cue is the word 'Search' in the name.

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