search_api_reference

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It details the return structure (dict with symbol info, headings, code blocks, tables) but does not explicitly state it is read-only or describe error behavior (e.g., symbol not found). The description adds moderate value but lacks full behavioral context.

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 efficient: one line for purpose, followed by args/returns. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy. The structure is front-loaded with the core action.

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, single-parameter lookup tool, the description is largely sufficient. It explains the return format (dict with specific fields), though it could mention edge cases (e.g., symbol not found) or provide more detail about the structure of the dictionary.

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 has one parameter 'symbol' with 0% description coverage. The description compensates well by explaining its purpose ('The symbol to look up') and providing clear examples, adding meaningful context beyond the raw schema.

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 the action ('Look up') and the specific resource ('API reference documentation for a Reflex symbol'), with concrete examples like 'rx.State', 'rx.button', 'EventHandler'. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_doc or search_docs, which cover broader documentation.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_docs or get_code_examples. The description does not specify exclusions or prerequisites, limiting the agent's ability to decide between tools.

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