search_manuals

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds non-obvious matching behavior the annotations cannot convey: literal case-insensitive matching, whitespace normalization, and that results are short excerpts (implying truncation) with offset-based paging. It stops short of describing result ordering or a match-count cap.

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?

Three short lines, front-loaded with the core purpose, then matching semantics, then routing. Every sentence carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does state the return shape (page references plus short excerpts). Read-only status is covered by annotations. The only gap is that manual_id and max_results are unexplained, which matters for a search tool that can be scoped to one manual.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It characterizes the query well (literal, case-insensitive, whitespace-normalized, full spellings) and gestures at paging via 'next_offset', but never explains 'manual_id' scoping or 'max_results', leaving two of four parameters undocumented anywhere.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Search original manual text offline' plus a clear statement of what comes back ('page references and short excerpts'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling read_manual_pages and from list_manuals by scope, so an agent can route without opening a schema.

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 routing guidance: 'Use next_offset for more matches, read_manual_pages for complete context' names the alternative and the condition that selects it. It also tells the agent how to phrase queries ('full command spellings (e.g. HICRest) or keywords, not only abbreviated SCPI'), which is a real usage constraint.

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