Search AL-Go Documentation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it discloses nothing behavioral: not that it is a read-only operation, not how results are ranked or returned, not whether it hits a cache (siblings alg-refresh-cache/alg-cache-stats suggest a cached index), and not the truncation behavior of the limit parameter. It is not misleading, but it is essentially bare.

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?

A single tight sentence with no filler and the core purpose front-loaded. Its brevity is appropriate, though it shades into under-specification rather than deliberate economy.

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 search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum describe the result shape, ranking, or how it differs from the other search/ask siblings. None of that is present, so an agent cannot confidently choose or interpret this tool from the definition alone.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both the query string and the limit (1-50, default 10) are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no extra meaning such as query syntax, matching mode, or what happens when limit exceeds available matches, so the baseline 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 (Search) and resource (AL-Go documentation) with a clear scope, so an agent knows this is a documentation keyword search rather than a general-purpose lookup. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the several sibling search tools (alg-semantic-search, alg-search-specialists, alg-search-discussions, alg-search-issues, alg-ask), leaving the agent to guess which corpus this covers versus those.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives despite a crowded sibling set of search/ask tools. The agent gets no signal about whether to prefer this over alg-semantic-search or alg-ask for a given question.

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