search_mkdocs-material

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully discloses that results contain a 'url' field that must be included in user-facing responses. It does not mention pagination, rate limits, or edge cases, but the read-only nature of a search tool is reasonably apparent.

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 description is two short sentences with no filler or redundant content. The core operation is front-loaded, and the important requirement about the 'url' field is stated immediately and clearly.

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 search tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete and adds the critical instruction about including the 'url' field in responses. The only notable gap is the lack of guidance on when to use this tool versus get_mkdocs-material_page.

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%, with both 'query' and 'limit' already documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 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?

The description states a specific action and resource: 'Search mkdocs-material documentation.' This clearly identifies the tool's purpose. It does not explicitly differentiate from get_mkdocs-material_page, though the search-vs-get distinction is reasonably implied by the name.

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 description clearly implies the tool is for searching documentation, which provides basic usage context. However, it does not specify when to prefer this tool over the sibling get_mkdocs-material_page, nor does it provide any exclusion criteria or alternative routing.

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