Elements Search Docs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety and scope profile is covered. The description adds that the search is semantic rather than keyword-based and returns source URLs, which is genuinely useful context, but the output schema already documents the return shape.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and return, then the usage trigger. Nothing is wasted, though the topic enumeration is slightly list-heavy for the value it adds.

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 and full annotation coverage, so the description only needs to supply purpose and usage context, which it does. It is nearly complete, missing only the relationship to the sibling doc-retrieval tool and any note about index freshness or result limits.

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?

There is a single `query` parameter with the schema description coverage at 0%, so the description must carry the load. It implies a natural-language question via 'AI-powered semantic search' and the topic list, but gives no guidance on query phrasing, length, or whether exact identifiers work. For one obvious parameter this is adequate but not additive.

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 Sigma Computing documentation') and adds the mechanism ('AI-powered semantic search') plus the return shape ('relevant doc passages with source URLs'). It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from the related sibling elements_get_doc_page, which also serves documentation content.

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?

'Use this to answer questions about Sigma features, configuration, formulas, administration, embedding, and best practices' gives a concrete set of triggering topics, which is strong context. However, it offers no exclusions and never names an alternative (e.g., elements_get_doc_page for a specific known page), so the routing decision is left partly to inference.

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