Search Coolify docs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it reveals the use of a local index, the absence of network calls, and the return fields (titles, canonical URLs, snippets). This gives the agent a better picture of performance and output.

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 that efficiently states the verb, resource, key differentiator (local index, no network), and return format. Every phrase earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what is searched, how (local index), network independence, and the shape of the returned data. The annotations further fill safety and world-behavior gaps, making the overall context sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 50% (query has a description, limit does not). The tool description adds minimal parameter meaning: 'full-text search' implies query semantics, and the mention of return fields indirectly helps. However, limit's behavior (max results, default) is not explained in the description or schema, so the description does not fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('Full-text search') and names the resource ('official Coolify documentation'), plus distinguishes from siblings by detailing the local index and no-network behavior. It clearly states what the tool does and is not confused with other tools.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: searching documentation offline via a bundled local index. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives but the sibling list contains no other doc-search tool, making its unique purpose apparent. The 'no network' note adds useful situational guidance.

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