Full-text search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the return shape (ranked hits with document id, page number, snippet) and the fact that results span both full-text pages and structured machine data. It omits anything about ranking behavior, latency, or result limits, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what is searched and what comes back, then query guidance, then the follow-up action. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema beyond a brief echo of ranking that an agent needs up front.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description explicitly describes the return (ranked hits, doc id, page, snippet), which covers the gap. For a read-only search tool with fully documented params and no annotations, an agent has everything needed to call it and act on 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline would be 3; the description earns above that by supplying example token types (designators, part numbers, signal names, plain words) that tell the agent what to actually put in 'query'. The doc_id scoping and limit parameters are left entirely to the schema, which already documents them adequately.

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 and resource — 'search every page of every document plus the curated machine data' — and enumerates the data domains covered (axes, PLC I/O, components, pump, procedures, parts, drive parameters). That scope distinguishes it from narrower siblings like search_parts, find_component, or find_sheet without the agent needing to open any schema.

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?

Gives concrete query patterns (device designators 'KM1', part numbers '302001-1', signal names 'PSTOP') and explicitly says to 'follow up with get_page / get_page_image to read the full sheet', which is real workflow guidance. It stops short of naming when to prefer search_parts or find_component instead, so no explicit exclusions or alternatives are stated.

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