search_spec

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It helpfully notes that the first call may take a few seconds to build the search index, indicating a setup cost. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is idempotent, any authorization needs, or what happens on errors.

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 three concise sentences. The first sentence states the primary action and resource, the second states the output format, and the third adds a crucial performance note. No redundant or unnecessary information.

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 (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately covers its purpose, output (sections with snippets), and a special behavior (first-call delay). It does not describe the return format in detail, but that is acceptable for a search tool.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all 3 parameters. The schema itself provides clear descriptions (e.g., spec ID hinting at list_specs). The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already offers, warranting the baseline score.

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 searches the PDF specification (ISO 32000-2) for a keyword or phrase and returns matching sections with context snippets. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_section or get_definitions by focusing on keyword-based search across the entire spec.

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 implies usage for finding topics across the spec but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_section for known sections). It mentions a first-call delay but lacks guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.

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