Search esa documentation and help

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'unfamiliar workflows' framing but says nothing about return format, pagination, or result ranking, so it only marginally exceeds what structured fields already provide.

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?

Two tightly written sentences: purpose first, usage conditions second, with zero filler. The front-loading lets an agent decide in the first clause whether the tool is relevant.

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?

For a read-only search-help tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and triggering conditions adequately, and the rich query schema fills in the search syntax. Minor gaps remain around pagination/return shape, but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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%, and the query parameter's schema text is extremely detailed (date syntax, OR operators, tag:/category: modifiers), so the schema carries the burden. The description adds no parameter guidance beyond what the schema documents, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 and resource: 'Search esa documentation for features, terminology, and specifications.' The word 'documentation' implicitly separates it from esa_search_posts (which searches user posts), but no sibling is named explicitly, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Provides concrete when-to-use triggers: 'users mention esa-specific terms, ask about esa functionality, or request help with esa workflows that you're not familiar with.' Clear context, but no when-not guidance and no alternatives named (e.g., esa_get_markdown_syntax_help or esa_get_search_options_help for narrower doc topics).

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