Search the Blujay docs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true; the description is consistent with that by naming the external site docs.blujay.io as the target. It adds no further behavior — no indication of result shape, ranking, result count, or whether queries are keyword vs natural language — so it only modestly exceeds what annotations provide.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and target, with the phrase after the colon doing useful work as concrete examples. No filler or redundancy.

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 single-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies enough to select and call it. The remaining gap is query-formulation guidance, which is minor for a simple docs search.

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 coverage is 0% for the single 'query' parameter, so the description carries the burden. The topic examples (sending rules, webhooks, errors, limits, SDKs) do hint at what a good query looks like, but the description never states expected query format, length, or whether keyword or natural-language phrasing works better.

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 ('Search') and resource ('docs.blujay.io'), plus the kind of content it covers (sending rules, webhooks, errors, limits, SDKs). Nothing in the sibling list performs documentation lookup, so the tool is easily distinguished from the messaging/contact operations, though the description never explicitly separates itself from them.

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?

'for how something works' clearly frames this as a conceptual/reference lookup rather than an operational action, and the listed topics give concrete situations that warrant a search. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance (e.g. 'do not use for looking up a specific message or conversation'), which the sibling set would have supported.

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