Search Docs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safe read-only nature is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by noting 'Auth: none required' and implying the tool returns result IDs that can be passed to `fetch`. It does not disclose result limits or exact return shape, but it adds value beyond the 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core action and scope, then gives concrete guidance, follow-up instruction, and auth info in a compact form. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant repetition of schema or annotations.

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 one-parameter search tool with safety annotations already provided, the description is complete: it states what is searched, when to use it, the auth requirement, and the follow-up path to read full text via `fetch`. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the clear 'result id' handoff instruction.

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%, and the schema already documents the query parameter with examples and empty-query behavior. The tool description adds usage-level guidance rather than parameter-level semantics, so a baseline 3 is appropriate; the schema is doing the heavy lifting.

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 has a specific verb and resource: 'Search the Ethora documentation and tool reference', then enumerates covered topics and even points to the sibling `fetch` tool for follow-up reading. This clearly distinguishes it from the many action-oriented sibling tools and the complementary `fetch` tool.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: for any 'how do I ...' question about Ethora before guessing. It also names the follow-up action (`fetch` with a result id), giving clear operational context beyond simple tool selection.

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