sbox_search_docs

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a search operation returning pages with titles, URLs, and snippets, which clarifies the read-only nature and return shape. However, it doesn't disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, or what the category filter actually filters against beyond the overloaded example. With zero annotation coverage, more disclosure would be expected.

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 efficient sentence that covers purpose and return format. It's appropriately front-loaded and contains no filler. The return-format clause is a useful addition without being verbose.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and all three parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds the return format (titles, URLs, snippets) not present in the schema. For a search tool with no output schema and no annotations, it covers the essential aspects: what it searches, what it returns, and how to filter. Sibling differentiation could be stronger given the presence of sbox_search_api, but the description is reasonably complete for a search utility.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (query, limit, category) with their descriptions and defaults. The description adds the return format but doesn't add meaning to individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting, and that's the case here.

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 verb 'search' plus resource 's&box documentation' clearly states the action and target. It specifies it covers guides, tutorials, and concepts and returns pages with titles, URLs, and snippets. It distinguishes from siblings by scoping to documentation pages (vs sbox_search_api which presumably targets API references), though this differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 implies when to use it (searching documentation for guides/tutorials/concepts) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling alternative to choose instead. Given the sibling sbox_search_api, an explicit note about when to use API search vs docs search would strengthen the tool's selection accuracy. Context can be inferred but is not stated.

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