search_site

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'cached' implying the data is a snapshot, which is useful, but it does not explain whether results are ordered, what happens on no matches, or any rate limits or permissions. For a search tool, behavior around result limits or pagination is not disclosed, which is a gap.

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 a single, efficient sentence (~12 words) that front-loads the core purpose and output. It does not waste words, though it could benefit from expanding on parameters or limitations without sacrificing brevity. The structure is appropriate for a straightforward search tool.

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 a simple input schema (query and limit) and an output schema (which presumably describes the snippet format), the description covers the primary action and output type. However, it lacks guidance on result ordering, default behavior when 'limit' is omitted, and any special characters or operators supported in 'query.' These omissions make it minimally complete but not comprehensive for an agent unfamiliar with the corpus.

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 0%, meaning neither 'query' nor 'limit' is described in the schema beyond their names and types. The description adds no information about the parameters: it does not explain that 'query' is the search string or that 'limit' controls result count. With no parameter documentation in the schema, the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent to guess parameter semantics.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'search' over a specific resource ('cached site corpus') and indicates the output ('snippets with source URLs'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_site_pages, which lists pages, and get_page, which retrieves a specific page; the description makes the search-and-snippet behavior explicit.

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 implies usage for keyword-based discovery but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings. It does not mention alternatives or provide exclusion criteria, such as 'use list_site_pages to browse all pages.' The context of search is clear, but guidance on alternatives is left to inference.

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