beel_docs_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, which match a search operation — no contradiction. The description adds the ranked-relevance behavior ('Returns the most relevant sections') but provides no further detail on result ordering, ranking cutoff, or how many sections beyond the limit parameter. With annotations covering the safety profile, the added value is modest.

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 information-dense sentences, front-loaded with the search domain and return behavior before the usage guidance. No filler or redundancy; every clause carries content.

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 low-complexity, read-only search tool with fully documented parameters and an open-world annotation, the description is adequate. It could mention result count or ordering semantics, but nothing an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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 both terms and limit are already documented in the schema. The description's topic enumeration (VeriFactu, corrective invoices, etc.) implicitly guides what search keywords are useful, but it adds no syntax, format, or semantic detail beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb (search), a specific resource (BeeL API documentation), and enumerates content domains (VeriFactu, invoice types, taxes, regime keys, corrective invoices, international customers, worked examples). It is distinguishable from sibling doc tools beel_docs_list and beel_docs_get via the 'search' verb and the ranked-sections return, but it never explicitly names those alternatives to stake out its niche.

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?

Provides an explicit situational trigger: 'Use this before building non-trivial invoices or when unsure about a fiscal rule.' This is concrete and actionable. It does not state when NOT to use it or explicitly route to the sibling doc tools (beel_docs_list, beel_docs_get), but the positive trigger is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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