Search the doc.cheap API documentation

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds significant behavioral detail: it makes no network call, works offline, and returns matching sections (title, snippet, link). This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them, fully informing the agent of the tool's behavior.

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 about three sentences but is information-dense with no fluff. It front-loads the purpose, then adds usage and behavior details, and every sentence contributes to the agent's understanding. It is well-structured and appropriately sized.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return format is covered. The description additionally explains offline operation, usage guidance, and what the search covers. For a two-parameter search tool, everything an agent needs to call it correctly is present.

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 the description repeats the limit range and default that the schema already documents. It adds the context of what the query searches over (endpoints, errors, etc.), but this is more about tool scope than parameter semantics. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema handles 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: full-text search over the doc.cheap API documentation, listing specific content types (endpoints, request options, response fields, error codes, MRZ rules, retention, pricing). This distinguishes it from siblings like check_balance and scan_document, which are unrelated operations.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use it before guessing at a field name, an error code or a scan option.' It also notes the tool reads a local copy and works offline, giving practical context for its use. While it doesn't explicitly list alternatives, the siblings are clearly different operations, so no confusion arises.

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