search_spryker_documentation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or discloses any side effects. For a search tool, the lack of safety or behavior cues is a notable gap.

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 a single sentence with no fluff, making it concise and front-loaded. While it is efficient, it could include an additional sentence about scope or behavior without becoming verbose, but for a simple search tool the length is appropriate.

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 low complexity, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It identifies the resource and action but does not specify the type of documentation (e.g., developer docs) or return format. Schema coverage is high, but the lack of output schema information leaves the agent uncertain about results.

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 covers both parameters with clear descriptions (e.g., natural language query, token limit). The tool description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only restating 'by query.' With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not improve parameter understanding.

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 action (search) and resource (Spryker documentation). It uses a specific verb and resource, making the purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like search_spryker_packages or search_spryker_package_code, which could confuse an agent when choosing the appropriate tool.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., for general documentation vs. package-specific searches). There is no mention of alternatives or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent without strategic context for tool selection.

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