Search sections

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the search behavior: matches tags (all must match) and free text against company/title. It implies a read-only operation but does not disclose any side effects or return details.

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 consists of two concise sentences. The first sentence defines the tool's purpose with examples, and the second adds a critical constraint. Every word serves a purpose, with no unnecessary information.

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 the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core functionality and a key constraint. However, it lacks details on pagination, return format, and idempotency, which would be beneficial for an agent.

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?

The schema coverage is 60%. The description adds value by explaining the 'tags' parameter (all must match) and providing examples. It also clarifies that 'sectionType' values come from get_design_vocabulary, which helps the agent. Other parameters like 'query' and 'limit' are sufficiently covered by 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?

The description clearly states that the tool searches individual page sections and lists examples (Hero, Pricing, Testimonials, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_pages by focusing on sections rather than whole pages.

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?

The description explains the tool is 'perfect for mixing and matching' sections, implying a reuse scenario. It also states 'tags must ALL match', providing a key usage constraint. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare to alternatives.

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