Search Jami docs

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: it works without an API token, and it discloses the return shape and the search-then-read workflow. It doesn't state ranking or pagination behavior, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence, then a scoping paragraph, then Args and Returns blocks. Every line carries information; nothing is padding.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still sketches the result fields and points to jami_read_doc for full pages, covering the search-then-read loop end to end. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it gives concrete query examples ('verify webhook signature express', 'withdrawal fee') and restates the limit default and 1–10 range. It omits the query length constraints (2–200 chars) present in the schema, so not a full 5.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Search the official JamiDev developer docs') and scopes it as the source of truth for Jami payments. The topic list (SDK, REST, webhooks, OAuth, wallet API) makes it clearly distinct from siblings like jami_read_doc and jami_get_checkout_status.

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?

'Use this before writing integration code' states the when explicitly, and it names the follow-up alternative ('Read a full page with jami_read_doc(path)'), drawing the search-vs-read boundary. No inference required.

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