Search RFCs

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: ranking of current documents above replaced ones and the specific return fields ('number, title, status, year and what obsoletes each'). No contradiction with annotations.

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 tightly written sentences deliver the search scope, ranking rule, and return fields with no filler. The most important operational detail (what it searches) is front-loaded.

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?

With output schema present and annotations covering safety/idempotence, the description covers search semantics, ranking, and return shape. The main remaining gap is the meaning of include_obsolete, but overall the agent has enough to invoke the tool correctly for typical searches.

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 description coverage is 50%, and the description meaningfully explains the query parameter as topic-word matching against titles, keywords, and abstracts. However, the include_obsolete parameter is not addressed in the description, leaving its semantics only to the field name and 'Default true' schema note.

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 ('Finds') and resource ('RFCs') with clear search scope: topic words in titles, keywords, and abstracts. The ranking behavior and return fields further distinguish it from siblings like rfc_info and rfc_section, making its role unambiguous.

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 implies usage for keyword/topic searching rather than exact-number lookup or section retrieval. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this tool over siblings or provides exclusions, so the guidance is only implicit.

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