search-concepts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavior disclosure. It usefully notes that results are ranked and include excerpts, but it does not discuss rate limits, authorization, or edge-case behavior. Adequate but not richly 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 tight sentences: the first establishes scope and output, the second gives workflow guidance. No filler or redundant restatement.

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 description covers scope, output shape, and the natural companion tool, while the schema covers parameters. It lacks caveats about result ranking behavior or potential query pitfalls, but for a simple search tool the essentials are present.

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%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond the general notion of keyword search, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific action ('search across 391 VTEX documentation files by keywords') and a distinct resource. It also positions the tool relative to explain-concept, making its purpose and boundary clear among sibling 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?

It explicitly says to use this tool 'before calling explain-concept', giving a clear workflow context. It does not enumerate when-not-to-use against other siblings like search-courses or lookup-vtex-api, so it stops short of a full 5.

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