search_manual_docs

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true. The description goes well beyond that by explaining query matching semantics, case-insensitivity, stop-word dropping, lack of regex support, the symmetric context widening, the index re-query behavior, and explicitly stating 'Read-only; consults bundled RST files only.' No contradiction with annotations exists.

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-organized: front-loaded purpose, bulleted return fields, then crisp parameter and matching semantics. Every sentence adds information, and there is no filler or redundancy.

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 tool's moderate complexity, the description covers the purpose, matching behavior, result fields, and the two non-obvious parameters (context and index). The output schema exists, so return-value details are already structurally available. The only minor omission, explicit max_results behavior, is inconsequential.

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 carries the parameter-documentation burden. It clearly explains query tokenization, the context parameter's symmetric widening, and the index parameter's role in retrieving a previous hit alone. max_results is not explicitly described, but its meaning is self-evident from the name.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Full-text search over the bundled Blender user manual.' This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling search_api_docs, which targets API documentation. The bulleted return fields further clarify exactly what the tool produces.

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 detailed behavior context, such as tokenization, stop-word removal, and the use of context/index. However, it never explicitly tells the agent when to choose this tool over search_api_docs or other siblings, and it names no alternatives or exclusion conditions. Usage is implied by the resource name rather than stated.

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