search_api

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety is known. The description adds nothing about behavior beyond being a search; no mention of result formatting, ordering, or scope boundaries. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate but not enriching.

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?

Single sentence, no filler, immediately states the action and scope. Extremely concise, though it sacrifices specificity.

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?

Given the simple search tool with output schema and annotations, the description covers the basic purpose but lacks context for when to use this vs sibling tools and what 'categories' means. It is minimally viable.

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?

Input schema has query (required) and limit (nullable integer, default null), but the description mentions neither. With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides zero parameter guidance, leaving the agent to infer semantics from schema names alone.

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 it searches categories configured as API/reference documentation, using a specific verb ('search') and resource ('API/reference documentation'). It differentiates from sibling search tools by scoping to API/reference content, though 'categories' is somewhat ambiguous.

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 guidance on when to use versus alternatives like search_docs or search_guides. The API/reference scope implies usage for reference docs, but no exclusions or alternative mentions are provided.

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