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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the constraint that URLs should come from search tools (a behavioral trait), but it does not mention potential side effects, authentication needs, or behavior around the max_chars parameter. It is safe to assume a fetch is read-only, but the description does not explicitly confirm it.

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 sentences long, with the core action upfront and the usage context in the second sentence. Every word earns its place, and it is highly efficient without any fluff.

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?

This is a simple fetch tool with an output schema, and the description gives enough context for the main use case (feed it a URL from search). The missing information about 'max_chars' and error behavior is a minor gap, but the tool's simplicity keeps the description largely adequate.

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. It adds meaning to the 'url' parameter by specifying it comes from search tools, but it completely omits any explanation of 'max_chars', leaving that parameter undocumented. The description only partially compensates for the low coverage.

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 clearly states the action ('Fetch the text content') and the resource ('an Ignition documentation page'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling search tools by specifying that it retrieves content for a given URL, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly instructs to use URLs returned by the sibling search tools, providing clear workflow guidance on when to use this tool relative to alternatives. This is a direct 'when to use' pointer that prevents misuse.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It adds the useful behavioral detail that it always searches the latest version, but it does not mention any limitations, side effects, or safety profile (e.g., read-only nature). For a search tool, this is a moderate disclosure.

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 sentences with the key action and resource front-loaded. Every sentence contributes: the first states the core function, the second provides use-case guidance. No wasted words.

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 description is reasonably complete for a simple search tool: it covers purpose, topics, and version. However, it lacks parameter explanations and does not reference sibling tools for alternative use cases. The presence of an output schema mitigates the need for return value details, but the missing parameter semantics is a clear gap.

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. It only implies that 'query' is a natural language question (via 'questions about...'), but 'n_results' is entirely unexplained. Neither parameter gets meaningful semantic elaboration.

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 clearly states the action ('Search') and the resource ('the Ignition User Manual'), and specifies that it always uses the latest version. It also enumerates covered topics (configuration, tags, scripting, modules, gateways, designers), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_ignition_sdk.

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 explicitly says 'Use this for questions about...' and lists relevant topics, providing clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives (e.g., search_ignition_sdk), so it falls short of a 5.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears responsibility for disclosing behavior. The description indicates the search source (SDK Programmer's Guide) and the intended query context, but does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, what it returns, or any pagination/format details. Since 'search' implies a non-destructive operation, the risk is low, but the description lacks richer behavioral context.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every word adds value. It avoids redundancy and clearly communicates purpose and usage in minimal text.

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 description provides sufficient context for a simple search tool: it names the search source and the type of queries. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values. However, the unclarified 'n_results' parameter leaves a small gap in completeness, preventing a perfect score.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage; the schema only defines 'query' and 'n_results' with no per-parameter descriptions. The description partially compensates by suggesting 'query' should be about building Ignition modules, but it does not explain 'n_results' at all. Since the description adds some semantic value for 'query' but leaves 'n_results' undefined, a score of 3 is 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search the Ignition SDK Programmer's Guide.' It specifies the resource (SDK Programmer's Guide) and the intended use case (questions about building Ignition modules), listing concrete classes like GatewayModuleHook and DesignerModuleHook. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_ignition_docs, which likely covers broader documentation.

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 explicitly says 'Use this for questions about building Ignition modules,' providing clear context for when to invoke this tool. While it does not name alternatives or exclusion criteria, the specific use case and the mention of the SDK guide imply a narrower scope than general docs search. This is clear context without explicit alternatives, matching a score of 4.

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