diana_manual_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false; the description adds useful operational context beyond them: content is read from a local help file for the installed version (consistent with a closed-world read), and 'the first call builds a local index (a few seconds)' warns of first-call latency. It stops short of saying what a page result looks like or how ranking works, but the essential behavior is disclosed.

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-loaded with the core action and version scoping, followed by topic coverage that doubles as retrieval vocabulary, then the sibling routing and the first-call caveat. The coverage list is long but each item maps to a real query surface; no sentences are redundant.

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 two-parameter, annotation-covered read tool with no output schema, the definition covers scope, alternatives, first-call cost and the page unit of limit. The main omission is any hint of result shape (pages? snippets? references) needed to chain into diana_manual_read.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning and largely does: the query examples ('LINPAG tabular layout', 'total strain crack Hordijk', 'EIGEN modes output') show that keyword-style, multi-term queries are expected rather than natural-language questions. It also clarifies that limit counts pages ('number of pages to return'), a distinction the bare integer parameter would not convey.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search the DIANA user's manual of the installed version') and enumerates the content scope (theory, element/material libraries, analysis procedures, .dat/.dcf batch syntax Appendices E-I, script commands Appendix B, subroutines, verification manual). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling diana_api_search, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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 explicit routing: 'Use it for solver command syntax, material model parameters, element types and output options; use diana_api_search for DianaIE script-command signatures.' The only gap is that the closely related sibling diana_manual_read is never mentioned, so the search-vs-read choice 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.