search_docs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions that the search is 'semantic' and that results include product, version, and topic-type metadata, giving the agent a clear expectation of output contents. It does not cover edge cases like empty results or rate limits, but the core behavior is transparently described.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. The first sentence states what the tool does, and the second gives usage guidance and describes the result. There is zero redundancy or filler.

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 has 4 parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: the purpose, the return contents (top matching sections with metadata), and a practical usage hint ('answer questions'). The schema handles parameter details, so the description fills the necessary gaps without being exhaustive.

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 covers all 4 parameters with descriptions, so parameter semantics are already well-defined. The description adds no additional parameter-specific context, so the baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Semantic search across Actian documentation.' It specifies the resource (Actian documentation), the action (search), and the output (top matching sections with metadata). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_topic and list_topics, which are for direct retrieval or listing, not semantic search.

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 says 'Use this to answer questions about Actian products,' providing a clear use case. However, it does not mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to use get_topic or list_topics instead), so it misses the 'when-not' guidance for a perfect score.

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