search_in_section

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context: keyword can be English or Chinese, and section is a category name (with example). But it does not mention return format, edge cases, or authorization, though it's a simple search tool with no destructive side effects.

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 concise: two sentences and an Args list. The purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence contributes meaning. The Chinese translation is an extra but not wasteful.

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 two-parameter search tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, and scope. It does not explicitly direct users to alternatives, but the sibling names and the 'only' qualifier cover the main contextual gap.

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%, but the description compensates by explaining 'keyword' as a search term with language flexibility and 'section' with a concrete example. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema names and types.

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 directly states action ('Search'), resource ('API docs'), and scope ('within a specific section only'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_docs (global) and list_by_section (listing without keyword).

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 phrase 'within a specific section only' clearly sets the context for section-scoped searches, implying when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough.

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