Search the Framework Documentation

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

The description discloses the output format (file path, nearest heading, excerpt per hit) and explicitly labels the tool as read-only and non-customer-data, matching the annotations. No contradictions or surprises.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that conveys the essential information without unnecessary fluff. It is perfectly 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?

The description explains what the tool does, what it returns, and its read-only nature. It doesn't cover edge cases or error handling, but for a straightforward search tool, this is adequate. Minor lack of detail about the 'nearest heading' concept, but overall 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?

The description does not add any information about the parameters 'query' and 'limit' beyond what is already in the schema. Since the schema already describes both parameters, the description adds no value to parameter understanding.

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 action ('Keyword search') and specific resource ('this framework's documentation set'), listing the included document types. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (get_capability, check_job) by focusing on documentation search.

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?

It explicitly states the tool is read-only and never serves customer records, implying it should be used for documentation queries. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives, though the purpose is clear enough.

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