search_mobile_docs

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

The description discloses key behaviors: target_version filters results based on availability, include_unavailable overrides filtering, and each hit is annotated with availability status. This adds value beyond a simple 'search' definition. With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden and does so well, though it could mention response size or rate limits.

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 structured with a clear one-line purpose followed by a bulleted list of parameters. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds value. No redundancy or wasted words.

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?

Given the output schema exists (so return values are documented elsewhere), the description covers all necessary context: search scope, platforms, filtering behavior, and parameter details. The tool's role among siblings is clear, making it complete for a search tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully explains all 5 parameters, including concrete examples (e.g., target_version '1.6.0' for androidx, '16.0' for iOS) and the effect of include_unavailable. This provides rich semantic meaning beyond the schema's type definitions.

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 it searches Android and Apple docs with specific examples (Jetpack/Compose, SwiftUI/UIKit). The verb 'Search' and resource 'mobile docs' are precise, and the tool is well-distinguished from sibling tools like get_api_reference (focused on specific API lookups) and get_release_notes.

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 searching mobile docs but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings or when not to use it. No alternative tools are mentioned. The context is clear, but exclusions or comparative guidance are absent.

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