Search Any Topic

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world hints. The description adds value by disclosing that 'Current year: 2026. All searches are normalized to fetch 2026 content,' which provides important temporal context. It does not contradict annotations.

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 well-structured with bullet points, examples, and a clear front-loaded statement. It is slightly verbose but each part earns its place. The 'Say 'use gt'' line might be redundant but does not majorly detract.

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?

For a broad search tool, the description covers many use cases, provides examples, and explains normalization. It does not specify result format, but given the open-world annotation, this is acceptable. It is complete enough for effective use.

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 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters (query and tokens). The description reinforces and expands on the schema by providing numerous concrete examples of valid queries, adding meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 for latest best practices, docs, or guidance on ANY topic — no library name needed.' It provides a specific verb+resource and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing broad, library-agnostic search. The extensive list of use cases further clarifies its scope.

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 gives a clear context for usage by listing many applicable categories (e.g., library best practices, web standards, security) and providing example queries. It does not explicitly exclude other tools or contrast with siblings, but the breadth of examples guides the agent effectively.

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