Search spec

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

The annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description describes a read-only search operation with no contradiction. It adds transparency by explaining the ranking order ('anchor-exact > title > anchor > prose') and that a prose snippet is included for body matches. This provides behavioral detail beyond the 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 concise, consisting of two sentences plus a clear follow-up instruction. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and uses no unnecessary words. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's function and usage.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters and no output schema. The description explains the search scope, ranking, the 'matched_on' field, and suggests a follow-up tool. While it does not detail the exact response structure, it provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool and interpret results. For a search tool, this is adequately 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% with all parameters described. The description adds minimal extra semantics: it relates the 'spec' parameter to the index being searched and explains that 'query' matches against multiple fields. However, the schema already documents these details sufficiently, so the description provides marginal added value. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it performs 'Full-text search across the section index of a spec' and enumerates the specific specs (core/js-api/web-api). It explicitly describes what is matched (clause anchors/ids, titles, prose) and distinguishes itself as the entry point when the exact anchor is unknown, with a follow-up suggestion to section_get. This is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like section_get or instruction_search.

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 says 'The entry point when you don't know the exact anchor. ... follow up with section_get,' providing clear usage context and a recommended next step. It also lists the three spec values, guiding selection. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., when the exact anchor is known), though that is implied by the guidance.

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