arvan_docs_search

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

Annotations provide no behavioral hints (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint are all false), and the description does not add any behavioral details such as pagination, query syntax, or rate limits. The agent learns nothing beyond the basic action.

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 short sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, but lacks any additional structure (e.g., parameter hints, examples) that would improve usability.

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's complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too sparse. It omits essential context about input syntax, expected output, and behavior, leaving the tool under-documented for effective agent use.

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 coverage is 0% — neither 'query' nor 'limit' have descriptions in the schema. The description only mentions 'query' indirectly via 'for a query,' and omits 'limit' entirely. It fails to explain parameter meaning, constraints, or usage, forcing the agent to guess.

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 the action ('Search') and the specific resource ('curated ArvanCloud documentation index'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like arvan_docs_fetch (retrieve a document) and arvan_docs_topics (list topics), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., arvan_docs_fetch, arvan_docs_topics). It lacks instructions on when to use or avoid it, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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