Search bestax

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral fact about results (each hit names the next tool), but with no output schema it leaves pagination, ranking, and result shape largely unstated.

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 what is searched and immediately followed by the routing role. No filler or restated name/title.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description usefully explains the return semantics (hits name the tool to call next). It is nearly complete, though it omits anything about result volume, limits, or ranking.

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 67% with 'kind' and 'query' described in-schema; the description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, and 'limit' is undocumented entirely. This matches the baseline for high-but-incomplete schema coverage.

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 (search) and enumerates the resources covered (components, props, examples, CSS variables, skills). The phrase 'entry point — each hit names the tool to call for the full thing' cleanly differentiates it from siblings like get_component and get_props.

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 clear context ('The entry point') and an explicit directive ('Use this before guessing a component name'), which steers the agent to search-first behavior. It implies the follow-up routing but does not name specific alternatives or when-not conditions.

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