Search Marko and evo-web documentation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description reinforces the closed-world nature by enumerating the fixed corpora. It adds the return shape (ranked sections with ids) and the follow-up route, but says nothing about ranking behavior, pagination, or empty-result handling beyond the limit parameter documented in the schema.

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, no filler: the corpus scope is front-loaded, and the second sentence covers the return value and next step. Every clause carries information an agent needs to decide and call.

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 three-parameter, read-only search tool with no output schema, the description covers input scope (corpora), output shape (ranked sections with ids), and the natural follow-up call. Nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning by spelling out what each source bucket actually contains (Marko docs vs evo-web site + components vs components only), which disambiguates the enum values. The query parameter is left to the schema, which already provides good 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?

The description names a specific verb (full-text search) and enumerates the exact corpus: Marko 6 docs, migration guides, evo-web component/accessibility docs, and component attributes/examples. It also distinguishes itself from retrieval siblings by stating that results are ranked sections with ids to pass to get_doc or get_component, so an agent knows this is the discovery step, not the fetch step.

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?

Usage is clearly implied: search first, then fetch detail via get_doc or get_component, which cleanly separates this tool from the retrieval siblings. What is missing is explicit guidance against alternatives such as list_docs or list_components (i.e., use this when you don't already know the doc name), so it stops short of naming when-not-to-use.

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