Search how-to articles

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses ranking logic (titles > summaries > headings > prose), strict word matching, and permission filtering (returns only entitled articles). It does not cover rate limits or pagination, but the mentioned behaviors are useful and not contradicting any 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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. Each sentence adds essential information: scope and verb, ranking behavior, and matching/permission constraints. There is no fluff.

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?

For a search tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains scope, ranking, and filtering. However, it does not describe the return format (e.g., list of article titles, summaries) or pagination behavior, which would be helpful for agents. The sibling tools and parameter schema help, but a slightly richer description would be more complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by explaining the query parameter's behavior (every word must appear, adding words narrows results), which goes beyond the schema's simple 'What to look for'. It doesn't add details for repo or limit but meaningfully enhances the query 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 tool searches how-to documentation across all readable repositories, using the specific verb 'Search' and identifying the resource. It distinguishes this from siblings like get_article (which likely retrieves a specific article) and list_repos (which lists repositories).

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 context on when to use it ('across every repository this token may read') and explains matching semantics (all query words must appear), which helps in selecting it. It doesn't explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, but the scope and behavior are clear enough. A stronger statement contrasting with get_article would merit a 5.

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