Search the ProAbono installation documentation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It states the tool returns matching documentation sections with their source file, implying a read-only, non-destructive operation. This is sufficient for a documentation search tool, though it doesn't explicitly declare read-only nature or side effects (which are absent).

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 wasted words. Purpose is front-loaded, usage guidance follows immediately, and return behavior is stated. Very efficient.

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?

For a search tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what it does, when to use it, and what it returns (sections and source file). It doesn't mention limitations like maximum results, but the schema handles that. Complete enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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%, so parameters are already described. The description doesn't add extra semantics beyond the schema, just reiterates that 'question' is in plain language. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 answers natural-language questions about ProAbono integration from official installation documentation, listing specific topics (hosted pages, security hash, workflows, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_api_reference by focusing on installation docs and natural-language queries.

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?

Explicitly instructs to use it before writing any integration code and to prefer it over recalling ProAbono behavior. This gives clear when-to-use guidance, though it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for other scenarios (like using the API reference for exact endpoint details).

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