Search automation API

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

With readOnlyHint=true already in annotations, the description still adds behavioral value by stating it 'Returns paginated TypeScript declarations and comments' and 'does not execute code'. This tells the agent what to expect from the output and reinforces the non-executing, read-only nature beyond what annotations convey.

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 a single tightly packed sentence that front-loads the core purpose and adds two valuable behavioral clarifications: paginated TypeScript content and no code execution. Every clause earns its place with zero filler.

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 read-only annotations, a fully self-describing schema, and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete for invoking this tool correctly. The main gap is the absence of any comparison to sibling search tools, such as search_items or analyze, which would have made usage guidance complete.

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%, so the input schema fully explains each parameter including query, offset, refresh, and maxCharacters. The description adds general context about searching API docs but no parameter-specific details beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 uses a specific verb-resource pair: 'Search installed OmniFocus API docs (4.9+)', which is distinct from sibling search tools that target tasks, projects, or tags. It also clarifies it 'does not execute code', further disambiguating it from tools like analyze. This is a clear, non-tautological statement of what the tool does.

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 implies the tool is for looking up API documentation but offers no explicit guidance on when to choose it over sibling search tools or analyze, and names no alternatives or exclusions. The only implicit usage clue is the scope 'installed OmniFocus API docs', which is not enough to route an agent confidently.

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