Search the Godot 4.7 API

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description reinforces 'Read-only' while adding real behavioral context: results are ranked best-first, the return is one line per match with kind and signature (with a sample), and the 'no matches' case is disclosed. It stops short of describing ranking/collation details or performance constraints, so not a top score.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the capability, then usage, then return shape, then parameter note. Every sentence carries distinct information; no filler or repetition of the title.

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?

With only two params, no output schema, and full schema coverage, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what is searched, how to phrase queries, routing to siblings for follow-up, result format, and match-count behavior including the empty case.

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% and both parameters are already documented there, including the same example strings and the default/max for limit. The description restates the limit cap (default 10, at most 50) and query semantics but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 Godot 4.7 class reference offline') plus exactly what fields are searched (class, method, property, signal names, keywords, descriptions). It differentiates itself from the named siblings godot_api (full entry) and godot_usages (project-local lookups).

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?

Explicit when-to-use with concrete example queries ('raycast 3d', 'change scene'), plus a clear next step ('call godot_api on the best match') and an explicit exclusion routing to godot_usages for project-local name usage. Nothing 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.