faz_search_api_docs

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

While the annotations already declare the tool read-only and non-destructive, the description adds valuable non-obvious context: 'The catalog is local and does not contact the appliance.' This tells the user that no network call is made, which is beyond what the annotations provide. It also lists result contents, giving a clear picture of what to expect.

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 three sentences, each earning its place. The first sentence states the purpose, the second provides usage context and result contents, and the third adds a critical behavioral note plus a pointer for further details. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids any redundant or filler wording.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage guidance, behavioral traits, and result content, which is sufficient for a search tool with an output schema. It mentions that results include JSON-RPC methods, API paths, summaries, source paths, and URLs, and advises consulting the source page for exact request parameters. The only notable gap is parameter semantics, but overall context is well covered.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage for parameters, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters (query, limit, category). While 'query' and 'limit' are somewhat self-explanatory, 'category' is ambiguous, and the description does not compensate for the schema gaps by offering any hints about parameter syntax, defaults, or usage.

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 starts with 'Search metadata extracted from the FortiAnalyzer API guide,' which clearly states a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly mentioning 'Use this before faz_raw_get or when a high-level tool does not cover an endpoint' and listing the types of results returned.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use this before faz_raw_get or when a high-level tool does not cover an endpoint.' This gives clear when-to-use scenarios and names an alternative (faz_raw_get) as well as a general category of alternatives (high-level tools). The instruction to 'consult the linked source page for exact request parameters' further guides usage.

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