Search Apify docs

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

The description discloses that the search returns only a limited content snippet and that full content must be fetched separately, which is important behavioral information. It also notes that it will not search the Apify Store, a limitation not present in annotations. While annotations already cover read-only and idempotent nature, the description adds useful context about output and limitations.

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 moderately concise, using bullet points for docSource and separating guidance for fetching full content. It has some redundancy in repeating the docSource details but is overall well-structured and not excessively verbose.

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?

The description provides sufficient context given the tool's simplicity, including output expectations (URL and content snippet) and a mention of the fetch-apify-docs tool for full content. It covers the main usage scenarios and does not leave major gaps in understanding.

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 schema already provides comprehensive descriptions for all parameters, including the query, limit, offset, and docSource with enums. The tool description reiterates the docSource options but adds little additional semantic meaning beyond the schema. Since coverage is 100%, the parameter semantics are well-covered by the schema alone.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Search Apify and Crawlee documentation using full-text search.' It also distinguishes the scope from the Apify Store and provides a clear verb-object structure. This effectively communicates the tool's purpose and differentiates it from sibling tools like search-actors.

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 provides explicit usage instructions, such as 'You must explicitly select which documentation source to search using the docSource parameter' and recommends using fetch-apify-docs for retrieving full content. It also advises against searching the Apify Store unless specifically asked, guiding when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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