search_astryx_docs

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It only states that the tool searches across docs; it doesn't say whether results are snippets, ranked lists, or full documents, nor what happens with no matches or ambiguous queries.

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?

One short sentence, no filler, no repetition of the schema. It is easy to parse and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 one-parameter search tool the description is minimally adequate, but it lacks output/result details and sibling-routing guidance, and there is no output schema or annotations to fill those gaps.

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 schema already documents the query parameter at 100% coverage with concrete examples. The description adds no further parameter semantics beyond the tool's broad scope, so baseline 3 applies.

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 the verb 'search' and the resource 'Meta Astryx design system documentation, guides, components, and API references.' It is clearly a search operation, but it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_ tools beyond implying breadth.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool instead of get_astryx_component, get_theme_guide, or get_cli_commands. The description implies a broad fallback, but an agent isn't told whether to prefer a targeted getter when the target is known.

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