search_posthog_docs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states 'Pure retrieval with no assembly,' which is a key behavioral trait indicating no synthesis. However, it does not mention potential limitations such as result count limits or the meaning of the 'k' parameter, though the output schema likely clarifies return structure.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then adding usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place—there is no fluff or redundancy.

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 the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context for selection and invocation. It explains purpose, output, and usage, but falls slightly short by not addressing the 'k' parameter. Overall, it is complete enough for 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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not explain the 'query' or 'k' parameters at all. While 'query' is implied by the verb 'search', 'k' (which likely controls the number of results) is entirely unexplained, leaving the agent without sufficient information to use parameters correctly.

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 tool's function: 'Search PostHog's JS/Web SDK docs and return ranked snippets.' It specifies the resource (JS/Web SDK docs), the action (search), and the output (ranked snippets). It also distinguishes from sibling tools by noting 'Pure retrieval with no assembly' and explicitly contrasting with 'how_do_i'.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'use this to discover what documentation exists' and 'For "how do I X" questions, use `how_do_i` instead.' This clearly states when to use this tool versus an alternative.

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