infomaniak_docs_search

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds genuine value: a hard privacy constraint against customer identifiers, addresses and credentials in queries, plus the caveat that returned docs do not imply permission or execution coverage.

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 short sentences with the capability front-loaded and the safety constraint immediately after; no filler. The second sentence packs two distinct ideas, but neither is expendable.

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 read-only search tool with no output schema, the definition covers corpus scope, query hygiene and the nature of results. Minor omissions remain around result format and the limit/language parameters, but nothing critical to correct invocation 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 only 25%, but the description partially compensates by mapping the two corpora (help guides vs. live API index) onto the 'source' choice and by constraining what belongs in 'query'. It says nothing about 'limit' or language selection, leaving part of the gap unaddressed.

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 gives a specific verb and clear resource scope: searching official Infomaniak help guides (Manager/browser tasks) or the live developer API index. This tells an agent what corpus it hits, though it never names the nearest siblings (infomaniak_search, infomaniak_docs_read) to differentiate itself explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied through 'public feature terms only' and the closing note that results are documentation rather than permission or execution coverage, which steers away from using it for account actions. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over infomaniak_search or infomaniak_docs_read.

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