gramax_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it warns that a non-empty language value can zero out results on some portals (passed as articlesLanguage) and explains the vector vs full-text search modes. It does not cover permissions or rate limits, but the portal-specific gotcha is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent needs.

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?

The purpose line is front-loaded and the Args block is structured per-parameter with zero filler. It is slightly verbose due to multi-line examples, but each line conveys parameter meaning that would otherwise be missing given 0% schema coverage.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the six input parameters plus a critical portal quirk. The main remaining gap is routing relative to the sibling search/get tools, which leaves the agent to infer selection.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it documents all six parameters, gives defaults, lists accepted language codes, explains the three resource_filter modes, and supplies three concrete property_filter examples with op/key/value/list syntax. This is strong compensation, though query syntax details remain thin.

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 opening line states a specific verb+resource (search across Gramax documentation articles), which is clear and actionable. However, it gives no differentiation from the sibling gramax_ai_search, which an agent could easily confuse with this tool. Clear purpose, but sibling disambiguation is absent.

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?

The parameter notes imply usage contexts (omit catalog_name to search everything, use search_type='vector' for semantic search), which is helpful. But there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over gramax_ai_search or gramax_get_article, and no when-not guidance. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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