Search BookStack

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description earns credit for disclosing the return shape (matches with [type:id] refs, location, and text snippet), which the agent would otherwise not know since there is no output schema. It does not mention pagination behavior despite page/count parameters existing.

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, zero filler: purpose first, then return shape, then the query grammar that is the genuinely non-obvious part. Nothing could be cut without losing information an agent needs.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly explains what comes back, and it supplies the query syntax the thin schema omits. It falls short only on pagination semantics (the role of page/count) and on distinguishing itself from the 'list' sibling.

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 only 25% — query has no schema description at all — so the description must carry that burden, and it does by spelling out the exact BookStack query grammar ("exact phrase", [tag=value], {in_name:word}, {updated_by:me}, {created_by:me}). The type enum is documented in the schema, but page and count are unexplained in both places.

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 (full-text search) and enumerates the entity types searched (shelves, books, chapters, pages), which is more precise than the bare name 'search'. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling 'list', which likely also enumerates these entity types — an agent still has to infer which retrieves by keyword vs. paging.

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?

Usage is only implied: the presence of full-text syntax strongly suggests 'use this when you want keyword matching', but the description never says when to prefer it over the sibling 'list' or 'get', nor any exclusions. For a search tool sitting next to a list tool, an explicit routing sentence is the missing piece.

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