docs

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true; description enhances with 'Safety: reveal opt-in only', indicating sensitive values are masked unless reveal is set. 'Static' also clarifies the data source. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Extremely compact: two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Each clause carries meaning—purpose, signature, and safety caveat.

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 simple search tool with a full output schema and 100% schema parameter coverage, the description covers the core behavior and safety. It does not mention pagination or projection, but schema covers these; the main gap is the misleading signature omitting the required action parameter.

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 schema documents all 9 parameters. The description's signature is minimal and omits action, pagination, and projection params, adding no new semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Description clearly identifies the tool as searching static Coolify documentation guides, with a specific verb ('search') and resource ('documentation guides'). This distinguishes it from sibling operational tools like deployment, server, and database.

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?

It states the tool is for searching static documentation, placing it in clear context relative to operational siblings. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so no exclusions are given.

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