Man

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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, closed-world, non-destructive operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that, such as what kind of search is performed or how lookup differs from search. It does not contradict the annotations, but it contributes little.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word supports the tool's core purpose.

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 simple, read-only nature of the tool, a fully documented schema, and an output schema, the description is nearly complete for invocation. It could mention sibling tools like bm_man or clarify the page/search distinction, but those are minor gaps.

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 100%, so the schema already documents `page`, `query`, and the ignored `project`/`project_id` parameters in detail. The description only gestures at page lookup and search without adding syntax or constraints, so it meets the baseline but does not enrich parameter meaning.

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 states a clear verb ('Look up', 'search') and resource ('manual page', 'the manual'), so the tool's function is immediately understandable. It does not distinguish itself from likely siblings such as bm_man, which prevents a 5.

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 phrase 'or search the manual' implies the two usage modes, but it does not explicitly explain when to use `page` versus `query`, nor does it name alternatives. The schema notes mutual exclusivity, but the description itself gives only implied guidance.

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