Search VIPMP docs

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

The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it explains the ranking algorithm (title/tag matches plus content matches), the dependency on the local cache, and the response style (query-relevant sections rather than a blunt character cutoff). This is genuinely transparent about how the tool behaves, and it does not contradict the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent 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 and appropriately sized. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds ranking and return behavior, then documents parameters. Every sentence contributes useful information — from the cache recommendation to the result-shape clarification — with no filler or repetition.

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 annotations, output schema, and sibling context, the description is complete. It explains how to maximize result quality, what kind of results are returned, and the parameter constraints. There is no missing information an agent would need to decide on and invoke this tool correctly.

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 full burden for parameter meaning. It does this well: 'query' is explained as search terms with concrete examples, and 'max_results' is given a default and an upper bound. This adds substantial meaning beyond the raw schema definitions.

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 states a specific verb ('Search'), a clear resource ('Adobe VIP Marketplace API documentation'), and a method ('by keyword or topic'). It also differentiates the tool from siblings by explaining how results are ranked and what is returned — page titles, paths, and relevant sections — rather than just repeating the tool name.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: search documentation by keyword or topic, with an explicit recommendation to call warm_vipmp_cache once for best results. It does not name sibling tools as alternatives or list exclusion criteria, but the usage context is clear and actionable.

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