search_bunkerweb_docs

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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, and the description adds that the search is remote/semantic and what each result contains (title, URL, category, relevance). However, an output schema exists, so the return-shape detail is largely redundant, and it says nothing about latency, result volume, or behavior when nothing matches (that tuning hint lives only in the schema).

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 sentences, purpose front-loaded, then return shape, then the routing rule. No filler and every clause carries information.

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 5 params at full schema coverage, a readOnly annotation and an output schema, the description covers everything an agent still needs: what the search is, what it returns, and when to prefer the live-state API tools.

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%, including the purpose of query, limit, category, min_score and max_content_length, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level guidance beyond implying natural-language queries and a category-ish result field.

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 and resource ("Search the official BunkerWeb documentation") plus the mechanism (semantic / meaning-based, remote) and the unit of return (one titled section per document). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the API tools that read live state, so an agent can separate documentation lookup from live-state calls at a glance.

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?

Gives a clear routing rule: how-to and setting questions go here, live-state questions go to the API tools. It stops short of naming which specific sibling to use for a given live-state need, but the boundary is unambiguous.

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