Search Houdini docs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results contain id/title/url, which implies follow-up retrieval via `fetch`, but says nothing about result caps, ranking, empty-result behavior, or search scope beyond "node-type documentation".

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the return shape with no padding. The only wasted space is the vague "OpenAI-compatible" qualifier, which occupies a sentence lead without informing behavior.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description needn't fully explain return values, and it correctly sketches id/title/url for orientation. For a simple one-parameter tool this is nearly adequate, but the missing routing cue relative to `fetch` and `list_node_types` leaves a real gap in a 15-tool namespace.

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?

The single `query` parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate; it only partially does by implying the query targets node-type names. It adds no guidance on keyword form, natural-language phrasing, or identifier matching.

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 verb and a resource ("search over node-type documentation") and states the result shape, but "OpenAI-compatible search" is opaque jargon that does little work for an agent. It also fails to distinguish this tool from siblings like `fetch` or `list_node_types`, which are the most plausible alternatives for documentation retrieval.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus `fetch`, `get_node`, or `list_node_types`, and no prerequisite or constraint information. The agent must infer from the word "docs" that this is the discovery step and `fetch` the retrieval step.

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