td_search_official_docs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so behavioral safety is covered. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context such as pagination, request rate limits, or how results are returned. Given annotations, the bar is lower, but still no added value beyond what is structured.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no waste. It efficiently states the action and scope. However, it could be slightly expanded to include usage guidance without harming conciseness.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description does not explain how parameters affect results or what the overall behavior is (e.g., whether it returns summaries or full content). For a tool with 4 parameters and many siblings, more context is needed for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description should clarify parameter meanings. The text mentions content types (operators, palette, etc.) that might relate to card_types or family, but does not explicitly define any parameter. Parameters query, limit, family, and card_types remain largely unexplained, forcing the agent to guess their roles.

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 specifies the tool searches a 'knowledge corpus' and lists the content types it covers (operators, palette, releases, snippets, articles), making the purpose clear and distinct from more specific sibling tools like td_lookup_snippets or td_lookup_palette_component.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It is implied that this tool is for broad searches, but without saying 'use this for general search; for a specific look-up, use x', the agent must infer. Context signals show many sibling tools, but the description does not differentiate usage scenarios.

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