search_reference

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does well: it discloses the return format ('document, page/block number and a snippet'), the substring-match filtering behavior of doc, and the scope limitation to ingested material. It stops short of noting edge cases like empty-result behavior or the effect of the limit parameter, but the core behaviors are transparent.

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?

Two compact paragraphs with the core purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. The second paragraph adds scope, filtering semantics, and return format — all useful, none redundant. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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 3 params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete: it specifies what is searched, how filtering works, and what each hit contains. The only gaps are limit behavior and empty-result handling, which are minor for a search tool whose return format is already disclosed.

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 must compensate. It adds real value for 'doc' by explaining substring matching with concrete examples ('PLRM', 'Green', 'DSC'). However, 'query' and 'limit' are left to inference from their names/types, which are fairly self-evident. The description covers the one non-obvious parameter but not the other two.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Search the PostScript reference corpus and return cited passages.' It enumerates the exact corpus contents (PLRM, Blue/Green books, DSC/EPS specs, tutorials), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like search_operators (operator-specific) and search_pslib. An agent can tell what it targets without inspecting other tools.

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 corpus description ('Covers whatever was ingested...') implies when to use it — when you need to cite a PostScript specification — but it never explicitly names alternatives or exclusions. It does not say 'use search_operators for operator syntax' or otherwise route between sibling search tools. The guidance is implied, not stated.

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