docs

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is established. The description adds that the document is public and that only one document is fetched by exact route, but it does not disclose behavior for unknown routes or whether the raw markdown body is returned.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence states what is fetched, from where, and how the target is identified, with no redundant phrasing. Every word contributes to the agent's understanding.

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 one-parameter, read-only fetch tool, the description plus schema covers the core call requirements: target identity, source index, and public access scope. It omits output structure and error behavior, but the low complexity and read-only annotations make this a minor gap rather than a blocking one.

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?

The input schema fully documents the single route parameter at 100% coverage, specifying exact route, canonical URL, or markdown URL in the public docs index. The description essentially restates this and adds no further format, normalization, or encoding guidance, so it sits at the schema-coverage baseline.

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 names a precise action ('Fetch one public AgendaForge markdown document') and the exact selection method ('by an exact route or URL'), making it clear this is deterministic retrieval rather than search. It also scopes the operation to the public docs index, so there is no ambiguity about the resource being accessed.

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 conveys a clear precondition: the caller must already know an exact route, canonical URL, or markdown URL from the public docs index. It does not explicitly direct the agent to use search_docs when the route is unknown, so it stops short of full alternative guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral scope: it explicitly excludes account and private event data, which is useful context beyond the annotations and helps an agent set expectations for results.

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 with no filler. The core action and scope come first, and the security/data-scope caveat is stated immediately after, making it easy to parse.

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?

This is a simple search tool with only two parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects. The description covers what is searched and what is excluded, which is sufficient for most invocation contexts. It does not explain how it differs from fetch_doc, but that is a minor gap given the low complexity.

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%, with 'query' and 'limit' both described in the schema. The description does not add additional parameter-level detail, so the schema carries the burden. 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 states a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('AgendaForge public marketing and documentation content'), which clearly identifies what the tool operates on. It does not explicitly name the sibling tool fetch_doc, but the scope is precise enough that an agent can tell search_docs apart from a doc-fetching tool.

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 implies this is for searching public content rather than retrieving a known document, but it does not explicitly state when to use search_docs versus fetch_doc or mention any exclusion criteria. The usage context is inferable from the verb and scope, but not spelled out.

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