search_docs

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the disclosure burden. It reasonably communicates that this is a read-only search returning snippets, but it does not mention search matching behavior such as case sensitivity, relevance ordering, or what happens when no matches are found.

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 compact sentences with no filler. The primary action and return format are front-loaded, and every clause adds useful information.

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 two parameters and full schema documentation, the description is nearly sufficient. It explains the purpose and result format, and the sibling read_doc provides enough context to orient the agent. Minor gaps like result ordering and edge-case behavior are not critical for correct invocation.

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%: both query and limit are described in the schema. The description adds little beyond that, though 'keyword or phrase' reinforces the query semantics. This matches the baseline of 3.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Search'), a clear resource ('internal markdown documentation'), and the output shape ('matching files with a short snippet'). The action of searching is clearly distinguished from the sibling tool read_doc, so an agent can tell them apart.

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 when to use the tool: when you need to locate documents by keyword, not when you already know the document and want to read it. However, it never explicitly names the sibling alternative or states when not to use this tool, leaving the decision partly to inference.

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