ask

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key behavior: a single query fans out across four knowledge sources and the result routes you to another tool. It doesn't state read-only safety, result limits, or ranking behavior, but the essential operational shape is clear.

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, zero waste, and the highest-value guidance ("best first call") is front-loaded before the mechanism. Nothing is repeated from structured fields.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be spelled out, and the description still conveys the return conceptually as a next-tool recommendation. For a one-parameter lookup tool this is nearly complete; only input-phrasing expectations are left unstated.

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?

One required parameter at 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. The framing as a "how-to question" implies natural-language input, which is useful, but it says nothing about phrasing, scope limits, or whether keyword-style queries work.

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?

Specific verb (searches) plus the exact corpora searched (guide, known pitfalls, type index, README), and it explicitly positions itself as the aggregate entry point. That distinguishes it from siblings like search_guide, get_gotchas, and get_doc_section without the agent needing to open 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?

"Best first call for any how-to question" gives a clear triggering condition and implicitly carves out non-how-to work, and "tells you which tool to call next" explains the follow-up flow. It stops short of naming when NOT to use it (e.g., direct symbol or file lookups), which keeps it off a 5.

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