search_troubleshooting

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) already disclose safety and side-effect profile. The description adds the behavioral detail that the search is limited to categories of type 'troubleshooting and support', which clarifies what the query targets. No contradictions exist.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb, with zero redundant content. The description is as concise as possible while conveying the essential purpose.

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?

The tool is simple, and the presence of an output schema and safety annotations reduces the need for extensive detail. However, the description lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it relates to similar search tools, and parameter semantics are nonexistent, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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%, and the description provides no additional meaning for the parameters (query and limit). The description does not explain what the query searches within or how limit behaves, leaving the agent to infer from parameter 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 'Search categories configured as troubleshooting and support content' specifies a clear verb (Search), resource (categories), and distinct scope (troubleshooting and support content), setting it apart from sibling tools like search_docs or search_guides.

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 when to use this tool: when searching for troubleshooting/support-related categories. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous given the unique scope.

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