Search the DeepLinkNow docs

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: this is keyword (not semantic) search, and results are sections plus page URLs, which tells the agent the granularity of the response. It omits ranking/relevance behavior and any limits on result quality.

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 core action and scope, followed by return format and usage triggers. No filler or repetition of the tool name.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully explains the return shape (matching sections with page URLs) and the content scope. An agent can call it correctly; only matching/ranking behavior and any caveats about coverage gaps are missing, which is a minor omission.

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 both query and max_results including examples and range. The description only restates the query intent at a high level, so the baseline 3 is appropriate; it adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 (keyword search) and resource (the full documentation), and enumerates the scope: SDK docs for iOS/Android/React Native/Flutter, integration checklist, pricing and comparisons. It also states what comes back (best-matching sections with page URLs), which separates it from siblings like get_setup_guide or explain_match_result.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use triggers (error codes, options, plan limits, paste prompt) that map to specific questions rather than browsing. It does not, however, name a sibling alternative or state when not to use it (e.g., use get_setup_guide for the full getting-started flow instead).

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