chargebee_documentation_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates this is a search tool for documentation, implying a read-only, non-destructive operation. It does not mention side effects, rate limits, or return format, but the core behavior is transparent enough for an agent.

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 well-structured, starting with critical usage boundaries, then listing use cases, then parameters. It is front-loaded with the most important information. It could be slightly more concise, but every sentence serves a clear 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description does not specify what the tool returns (e.g., format, if results are snippets or full documents) or error handling. However, it covers usage boundaries and parameter semantics adequately for a search tool with a sibling distinction.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing usage context for each parameter (e.g., 'Check the user's application language' for language, and 'User's original request to you' for userRequest), which helps the agent set values correctly.

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 the tool is for 'general product documentation queries' and explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling tool, naming the sibling and specifying when to use that alternative. It lists specific use cases, making the purpose highly distinct and actionable.

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 provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, including naming the alternative tool 'chargebee_code_planner' for implementation questions. It also enumerates specific allowed query types, leaving no ambiguity.

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