search_docs

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the local-first search behavior, web fallback, bias toward official docs, and the effect of fetch_top=true. However, it does not mention potential side effects or explain the behavior of all parameters (e.g., save, target), which leaves some opacity.

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 concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes only essential details (official docs, local-first, fetch_top). No filler or redundant statements.

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 6 parameters and no output schema, the description should explain return values and remaining parameters. It partially explains the difference between result list and markdown via fetch_top, but does not cover the behavior of local_only/skip_local/save or define the return structure sufficiently. Gaps remain for a complete understanding.

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 only 17%, so the description must compensate. It does add semantic clarity for fetch_top and implies meaning for local behavior, but it does not explicitly explain local_only, skip_local, save, or target. The addition of fetch_top semantics is helpful but incomplete for such low schema coverage.

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 it's a search tool for 'Language & API documentation' and differentiates itself from siblings by detailing a bias toward official docs and a local-first approach. The verb+resource is specific and unambiguous.

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?

Provides clear context on when the tool is appropriate (language/API documentation lookups) and describes the local-first behavior with web fallback. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the context is strong enough to guide selection.

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