Search Jev docs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety and scope are covered. The description adds context annotations cannot express: the return shape (best-matching pages with paths and snippets) and the intended handoff to jev_docs_read. It omits ranking behavior and rate limits, so not a 5.

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 sentences with zero filler; the purpose is front-loaded and the workflow hint follows immediately. Every clause earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description explicitly describes what comes back (matching pages with paths and snippets) and what to do next. Combined with full schema coverage on both parameters, an agent has everything needed to call and follow up correctly.

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% and the query param even carries example search phrases, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no syntax, matching, or query-construction guidance beyond what the schema already states, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 ('Full-text search across the official TypeSafe/Jev documentation'), which cleanly separates it from the sibling list and read tools. An agent can identify it as the retrieval/finding step without opening any schema.

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 second sentence gives explicit routing guidance: results come back as paths and snippets, and a path should be passed to jev_docs_read for the full page. It names the downstream alternative but does not state when to prefer jev_docs_list or when search is inappropriate.

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