voog_search

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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, idempotent. Description adds key behavioral traits: hourly indexing, public content only, sentinel query for disabled indexing. No contradictions with 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?

Description is well-structured, front-loads purpose, and each sentence adds value. Slightly verbose but efficient overall.

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 complexity and richness of sibling tools, the description provides complete guidance on usage, limitations, and alternatives. No output schema, but return type is implied by search context.

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 80%, so schema already explains most parameters. Description adds minor guidance (e.g., use scope to narrow), but does not significantly supplement what is already in the schema. Baseline 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?

Clearly states the tool performs full-text search across published content, specifying the endpoint and types of content (pages, articles, elements, products). Distinguishes from sibling tools by referencing alternatives for draft/fresh content.

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?

Explicitly advises when to use this tool (published content) and when not (draft/fresh edits), providing specific alternative tools (pages_list, articles_list, text_get). Also explains the scope parameter to narrow search.

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