search_docs

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It accurately states the tool performs a search and returns ranked results with scores and excerpts, indicating a read-only operation. It does not disclose potential edge cases like empty results or performance considerations, but the core behavior is clear.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the tool's core purpose and output. There is no unnecessary wording, and every part of the sentence adds value.

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 (all documented in schema) and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the output format (ranked topics, relevance scores, excerpts). It could elaborate on ranking order or result limits, but the overall context is adequate for a search tool.

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%, so parameters are already described in the input schema. The description does not add meaningful context beyond the schema, such as how parameters interact or recommended usage patterns. The phrase 'semantic search' only reinforces the schema's natural language description.

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 performs 'semantic search across the documentation corpus' and returns 'ranked topics with relevance scores and excerpts.' It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes from siblings like 'get_topic' and 'list_topics' by specifying search and ranking.

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 usage for finding documentation topics via natural language, but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternative tools like 'get_topic' for single topic retrieval.

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