Search official FiveM docs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the search is over a 'focused corpus' and from 'official Cfx.re documentation,' which is useful context. But it does not disclose other behavioral traits like return format, pagination, or rate limits. This aligns with the baseline where annotations carry safety and the description contributes minimal extra behavior.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place, and the structure is easy to scan.

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 tool is a simple search over a specified corpus, and the description covers purpose, scope, and usage topics. With safe annotations and an output schema present, this description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without additional context.

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 already documents both parameters with constraints (query: minLength/maxLength; limit: default/min/max). The description does not explain parameter semantics further, and schema coverage is 0%. While the parameter names are intuitive for a search tool, the description adds no value beyond what the schema provides.

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 clearly states 'Search a focused corpus loaded from official Cfx.re documentation' with a specific verb (search) and resource (focused corpus). It also differentiates from siblings by specifying the domain (GTAV Enhanced, runtime, NUI, etc.), making it distinct from other tools like get_native or validate_fxmanifest.

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 gives explicit usage context: 'Use for GTAV Enhanced resource, runtime, NUI, networking, security, and performance questions.' This tells the agent when to invoke the tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or mention alternative tools, so it is slightly below the highest bar.

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