search_manual

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the load, and it does most of it: it discloses the return shape (excerpts with page numbers, chapter info, source id, relevance score) and the scoping semantics of the source filter. It does not state limits such as result-count behavior or what happens on a non-matching source id, which keeps it short of 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 with the core action, then workflow, then the source-filter mechanics, then return format — a sensible order with no filler sentences. The bulleted source options are slightly verbose relative to the schema text they echo, which keeps it off a 5.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing the return contents and relevance scoring, plus the prerequisite get_sources call. An agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret the result 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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds operational meaning: the source value must be the exact id returned by get_sources, with concrete examples, and omitting it fans the search out across all manuals. That is more than a restatement of the schema's own text.

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 and resource ('Search the indexed reference manuals') and immediately differentiates itself from the sibling get_sources by assigning that tool the discovery role and this one the retrieval role. An agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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?

Gives explicit ordering ('Call get_sources first'), the trigger conditions ('whenever the user asks about a feature, workflow, keyboard shortcut, setting, or concept'), and an exclusion ('prefer it over guessing or a web search'). Nothing about when to reach for this tool is left to inference.

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