Search Lichtblick documentation

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description usefully adds the return shape (matching sections with page path, URL, and snippet), which is valuable context given there is no output schema. It does not mention ranking, result-count limits, or that the operation is non-destructive, so the disclosure is good but not rich.

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 tight sentences with zero filler, front-loading the search scope and then the return format. Every clause carries information.

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 two-parameter read-only tool, the description covers what it searches and what comes back, which is enough to invoke it correctly. The unmentioned limit/paging behavior and absence of an output schema leave a small gap.

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 50%: query is documented in the schema, but limit has no description there. The description implies keyword semantics but says nothing about limit, paging, or result sizing, so it does not compensate for the half of parameters left undocumented.

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?

Names a specific verb (full-text search) and resource (Lichtblick documentation and guides), and it is clearly distinguishable by intent from docs_list and docs_fetch. It does not explicitly reference the sibling tools to sharpen the boundary, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance or routing to docs_list/docs_fetch; the agent must infer that search is for keyword retrieval versus listing or fetching specific pages. The verb choice makes the intended usage implicitly clear, which fits a 3.

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