search_learn_pages

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly states that the search matches against multiple specified fields and that the tool returns all matching pages, which goes beyond the schema. However, it omits potential details like pagination, ordering, or case sensitivity, so it's not fully transparent.

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 concise sentences, front-loading the purpose and then adding return behavior. Every word is informative, with no redundant phrasing or 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?

For a simple one-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it names the resource, the searchable fields, and the return behavior. It also clearly distinguishes its scope from the sibling tools. There are no nested objects or complex outputs requiring further elaboration.

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 schema already describes the 'query' parameter as a search term to match against learn page content, and coverage is 100%. The description adds value by enumerating exactly which fields (title, meta title, meta description, body content) are searched, giving the parameter richer meaning than the schema 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 uses a specific verb ('Search'), identifies the resource ('Contentful learn pages'), and details the searchable fields (title, meta title, meta description, body content). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling search tools targeting other content types like case studies, events, blog posts, and blog pages.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling search tools, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The resource type 'learn pages' implies the appropriate usage, but this is not spelled out, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name.

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