search_titles

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

No annotations provided, but description discloses limitations ('no content reads', 'no embeddings'), output structure ('handle-only output'), and performance ('fast'). Does not cover authentication or rate limits, but sufficient for a search tool.

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 sentences, front-loaded with key info (version, nature, differentiation, usage). No redundant words.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, description covers purpose, usage, output fields, and limitations. Missing details on max_results default and error handling, but overall complete for a simple 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 67%. Description does not add new parameter details beyond what schema provides. It reinforces that query is heading text, but max_results behavior (default 10, min 1) is not clarified in description. 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?

Description clearly states it performs 'title-only token-overlap match' for navigation, distinguishing itself from sibling tool search_sections. The verb 'match' and resource 'titles' are specific.

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?

Provides explicit use case: 'Use for navigation: find the section whose heading text matches X'. States difference from search_sections, implying when not to use. Could be more explicit about alternatives but adequate.

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