Search the RouterOS reference

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description goes beyond that by stating it is offline, touches no router, and that the material documents traps such as item numbers being unstable between calls — genuinely useful behavioral context for planning a write.

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, each earning its place: scope first, usage guidance second, safety/behavioral constraint last. No filler and the most decision-relevant information (what it searches) is front-loaded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is unnecessary here. Between the description (scope, version coverage, offline/read-only nature, trap-documenting purpose) and the fully described schema, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly before issuing a write via mikrotik_exec.

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%, so the schema already documents query, limit (max 10, default 3) and the v6/v7 version enum, including reading version from '/system resource print'. The description adds only the general v6/v7 scope, which the schema's version field already conveys, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Search bundled RouterOS reference material') and scopes the content precisely (command syntax, idioms, version differences). The closing 'it does not touch any router' cleanly separates it from the sibling mikrotik_exec, so an agent can route correctly without opening any schema.

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 prescribes when to use it: 'before composing an unfamiliar command, and especially before any write.' That is clear actionable context, and the read-only clause implies the alternative is mikrotik_exec. It stops short of 5 because it never names a sibling or states when this tool should be skipped in favor of one.

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