search_sfra_documentation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it searches 'across all SFRA documentation' (scope), mentions 'relevance scoring and categorization' (ranking/grouping behavior), and implies it returns multiple results rather than single documents. However, it doesn't specify output format, pagination, or error conditions.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences: the first establishes purpose and usage guidelines, the second adds behavioral context. Every sentence adds value, though the list of examples in the first sentence could be slightly more concise while still maintaining clarity.

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 single-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by covering purpose, usage guidelines, and key behavioral traits. However, it doesn't describe the output format or structure, which would be helpful given the absence of an output schema.

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 100% for the single 'query' parameter, so the schema already fully documents it. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3 for adequate but not enhanced parameter semantics.

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 specific action ('Search across all SFRA documentation') and resource ('SFRA documentation'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'search_best_practices' or 'get_sfra_document' by emphasizing comprehensive search across all documentation rather than retrieving specific documents or searching other content types.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use this when you need to find specific SFRA features, understand how to implement controller patterns...') and provides multiple concrete examples of use cases, making it clear this is for broad documentation searches rather than targeted retrieval or other search types offered by siblings.

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