search_latest_documentation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results are 'official, up-to-date' and warns that internal training data may be outdated, adding meaningful context about the tool's authority and freshness. It does not describe error behavior or rate limits, but for a read-only retrieval tool this is sufficient.

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 front-loaded with the primary verb and resource, followed by concise usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant filler. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Given the tool has two simple parameters, full schema descriptions, and an output schema (so return values are documented elsewhere), the description sufficiently covers purpose, usage, and data freshness. It lacks explicit handling of cases like library not found, but that is not essential for tool selection and invocation.

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% for both parameters ('query' and 'library_name'), so the schema already provides full parameter meaning. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, only restating that the tool is for a library.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve official, up-to-date code examples and API references for a library.' This clearly states what the tool does and differentiates it from the sibling 'search_library_name' by focusing on documentation content rather than library name lookup.

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?

It explicitly instructs when to use the tool: 'Use this tool to find the exact syntax, function signatures, and usage patterns' and provides a strong directive to 'always verify with this tool' instead of relying on training data. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling context and schema reference to 'search_library_name' make the boundary clear.

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