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

The description discloses the full-text search behavior, the nature of results ('best-matching pages'), and exactly which fields are returned. It also explains the effect of omitting the product parameter. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds scoping and output context without any contradiction.

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 two concise sentences. It leads with the core purpose, then adds the key usage nuance about the product parameter. No redundant or filler content.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, output schema, clear annotations), the description covers purpose, return contents, and usage nuance sufficiently. The output schema handles return structure details, and the read-only annotation covers safety, making the description complete on its own.

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% and each parameter already has a clear description. The tool description adds a brief explanation of the product parameter's scoping behavior, but this largely duplicates the schema's own description. No significant additional meaning is provided beyond the structured definitions.

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 the tool performs 'Full-text search across the product documentation' with a specific verb and resource. It also lists the return fields (title, description, canonical URL, headings, snippet), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_doc and list_products.

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 explains how to scope the search by omitting or providing the product parameter and references list_products as the source of valid IDs. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer search_docs over get_doc, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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