search_api_docs

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions 'cached' (indicating non-live data) but omits key traits: read-only nature, result format, pagination (though limit parameter exists), rate limits, or auth requirements. This is insufficient for a mutation-free tool.

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?

A single concise sentence efficiently conveys the core purpose. It is front-loaded and has no fluff, though it could optionally mention key parameters. Still, it earns its place without excess.

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?

Given no output schema and only 2 parameters, the description should specify return value behavior (e.g., list of doc titles, snippets) but does not. The tool's complexity is low, but the description is incomplete, leaving agents to guess what the search yields.

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 only 50% (limit lacks description). The tool description adds 'Full-text search' which clarifies query semantics, but does not explain the limit parameter's effect (e.g., max results, pagination). The description does not fully compensate for the schema's gaps.

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 states the tool performs 'Full-text search in cached Mailganer API documentation', specifying the verb (search), resource (cached API documentation), and scope (full-text). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_api_endpoint_doc and search_postman by its focus on API docs rather than Postman or specific endpoints.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_postman or get_api_endpoint_doc. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context for use, leaving the agent without decision support.

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