search_content

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that it returns snippets with context and line numbers, which clarifies the output format, but it does not disclose details about making network requests, potential side effects, or any limitations. The description is adequate but not rich in behavioral transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every word earns its place. It is concise yet informative, with no redundant or filler content.

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 has 6 parameters and no output schema, but the description provides sufficient context: it explains the core functionality, gives a use case, and describes the return format (snippets with context and line numbers). However, it does not address the 'format' parameter or clarify the relationship with the sibling tool fetch_and_search, leaving minor gaps for a complex tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter meaning by mentioning 'URL (or raw HTML)', which aligns with the url and html params, but it does not add substantive detail beyond what the schema already documents. Thus, the description neither substantially improves nor harms parameter understanding.

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 tool's function: 'Search the content of a URL (or raw HTML) and return matching snippet(s) with surrounding context and line numbers.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes from fetch_url and extract_links, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool fetch_and_search, which likely has a similar purpose.

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 provides context for when to use the tool: 'Useful to find specific text/code/errors on a page without reading the whole thing.' This gives clear usage context, but it does not mention alternative tools or when not to use this tool, so it lacks exclusions or explicit comparisons.

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