Search Mushi documentation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint true. The description reinforces 'Read-only' and adds behavioral context: it searches by keyword and returns ranked results. No contradiction. It adds value beyond annotations by specifying the search behavior and output fields.

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?

Two sentences: the first states the action and output, the second gives usage guidance. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with key information. Maximally concise.

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 search tool with full schema coverage, output schema, and good annotations, the description covers purpose, usage context, and output shape. It includes the useful detail that results are ranked, which is not in schema. Complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

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 100% with both parameters adequately described. The description adds 'by keyword' which aligns with the query parameter, but does not provide further semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 it searches the official Mushi documentation by keyword and returns ranked results with specific fields (title, url, excerpt). It distinguishes itself from sibling tool run_nl_query by specifying its scope is the docs, not project data.

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?

Explicitly says when to use ('before guessing API shapes, tool names, or RPC names') and when not to use ('use run_nl_query for questions about your own project data, not the docs'), providing a clear alternative.

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