search_docs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that it performs semantic search and returns top matching sections with metadata, but it does not disclose potential edge cases, limitations, or whether filtering behaves strictly as described. This is adequate but not detailed.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and output, followed by a use case. Every word earns its place; there is no repetition of schema fields 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?

The tool is a simple read-only search with no output schema, so the description must convey the return shape. It successfully communicates that results are top matching sections with metadata, but it could be more explicit about the exact result format. However, given the tool's simplicity and the schema coverage, this is sufficient.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'product, version, and topic-type metadata,' which aligns conceptually with the 'product' and 'version' parameters, but it does not add any new semantic details beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('semantic search') and names the resource ('Actian documentation'), clearly stating what it returns ('top matching sections with product, version, and topic-type metadata'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_topic and list_topics by positioning it as a search tool rather than a retrieval or enumeration 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 explicitly states when to use it ('Use this to answer questions about Actian products'), providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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