search_official_docs

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses return structure (dict with results), version ranking behavior, max_results cap, and section restriction. No destructive or unexpected behavior is hidden.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, followed by clear bullet-point parameter descriptions and a concise return format note. No extraneous 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?

Despite lacking output schema, the description fully specifies return fields. All parameters are covered, and version handling behavior is explained. The tool's context (searching docs) is fully addressed.

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 coverage is 0%, but descriptions fully explain all 4 parameters: query as free-text, cryosparc_version with default and behavior, section restriction, and max_results cap. This adds critical meaning beyond mere schema types.

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 starts with a clear, specific verb+resource: 'Search the official CryoSPARC docs index.' It distinguishes from siblings (docs_status, read_official_doc) by focusing on search functionality.

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 explains parameters and version handling in detail, guiding usage context. It lacks explicit statements about when to use alternatives (e.g., read_official_doc for known URLs), but the sibling names imply differentiation.

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