search_manual

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses the multi-stage retrieval process, the automatic HyDE second pass when a miss is suspected, the citation output ('wiki-URL citations'), and that it handles both exact names and paraphrases. This is rich behavioral context well beyond what a schema would convey.

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?

Well-structured with a header line, retrieval-technique summary, and clear per-parameter annotations. Every sentence earns its place, technical detail is front-loaded, and the format is scannable.

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?

The tool is complex (hybrid retrieval, fusion, rescoring, conditional HyDE), and the description covers this well. There is an output schema, so return-value explanation isn't required. The only slight gap is whether the 'L1' tag and end-user intent guidance could be clearer, but for a single-free-text-query retrieval tool this is quite complete.

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 compensate for all three parameters. It does well: query ('What you need to know'), family (with concrete enum-like values and usage guidance), and limit ('Maximum passages to return'). Only minor gap is no detail on limit's default or range, but overall the description adds strong meaning absent from the bare 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 is specific: 'find passages answering a question, with wiki-URL citations' plus a 'L1' label. It clearly identifies the resource (manual/search passages) and the action (retrieve answers). Though siblings include browse_manual and read_page, the search/retrieve semantics are distinguishable from browsing or reading.

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 description explicitly explains the retrieval pipeline (BM25, dense, RRF fusion, cross-encoder rescoring), notes the automated HyDE fallback on probable misses, and tells when to use the family parameter ('when the question is about one family's operator; same-named operators exist across families'). This gives a clear context and exclusions for parameter usage, though it doesn't explicitly name when NOT to use this vs siblings.

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