search_content

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

No annotations present, so description bears full burden. It discloses that it returns 'most relevant verbatim paragraphs with their chapter', but does not explain relevance ranking, case sensitivity, or supported operators. It is adequate but not thorough.

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 sentences: first covers purpose and output, second gives a usage hint. No unnecessary words. Highly efficient.

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 simple search tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains return values (verbatim paragraphs and chapter). It could mention result limits or sorting, but the mention of 'most relevant' covers ranking. Minor gaps in full transparency.

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 both parameters 'query' and 'limit', so the description adds marginal value. It contextualizes the result as 'most relevant verbatim paragraphs', which enhances understanding beyond schema descriptions.

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 uses specific verb 'search' and resource 'full book text', and specifies the output 'most relevant verbatim paragraphs with their chapter'. It also provides an example use case, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_chapter or list_chapters.

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: 'Use for what does Bouricius say about X questions.' It does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but the sibling tools context and the clear purpose provide implicit guidance. Still, explicit exclusion could improve.

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