search_api

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: the search covers the entire documented symbol inventory and 'query' is a partial/substring match rather than exact. It omits any statement about result ordering, error behavior on unknown library/version values, or whether results are paginated beyond 'limit'.

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?

Front-loads the purpose in the first sentence, then the differentiated scope, then the workflow; the Args block is cleanly formatted. The enumerated symbol-type list is somewhat long but warranted since it defines coverage. No wasted sentences.

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?

With five parameters, no annotations, and an output schema already present, the description supplies what the structured fields do not: scope, matching semantics, all parameter meanings, and the follow-up tool. It leaves a small gap around result pagination/ordering and failure modes for invalid library or version values.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it documents all five parameters plus the default for library ('merlin') and the valid kind values (class, function, method, module, attribute, property, data). 'version: docs version override' and 'limit: maximum number of symbols to return' are terse, leaving minor gaps, but the required 'query' parameter is illustrated with concrete examples.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('Find documented API symbols by name') and states the search domain precisely: the project's own symbol inventory, covering every documented class, function, method, module, attribute and property. This scope statement alone differentiates it from search_docs (page text) and get_api_doc (signatures), which are named or 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?

Gives a clear two-step workflow: 'Use it to discover exact dotted names, then call get_api_doc for signatures,' which explicitly routes the agent to the correct follow-up sibling. It does not state when NOT to use it (e.g. when the agent already knows the exact symbol and should call get_api_doc directly), so it stops short of a 5.

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