Search reviewed proxy documentation

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

Annotations already establish the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world profile, so the bar is lower. The description still adds value the annotations do not: it names what comes back (canonical document IDs, excerpts, content revision) and imposes a security constraint against submitting credentials or logs.

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 tightly packed sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The return-value sentence is mildly redundant given an output schema exists, keeping it just below a 5.

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?

Annotations cover safety and an output schema covers return shape, so the remaining burden is small. Still, an agent gets no routing rule against get_proxy_doc and no guidance on the topic enum or result-limit behavior, which are the practical decisions when calling a search tool.

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 must carry parameter meaning, and it only partially does. The query parameter's intent is hinted at ('short topic query'), but 'limit' and the five-value 'topic' enum are never mentioned, leaving two of three 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Find reviewed ipvolt public guides and articles'), which is clearly distinguishable from the config-generation and error-diagnosis siblings. It stops short of naming get_proxy_doc as the tool for retrieving a full document by ID, so sibling differentiation against the closest alternative is only implicit.

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 only usage direction is input hygiene ('Submit a short topic query, never credentials or logs'), which constrains what to type rather than when to choose this tool over get_proxy_doc. There is no stated condition, prerequisite, or alternative for a multi-result search versus a single-document lookup.

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