search_docs

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return shape (top-k passages with source, heading, relevance score), which is useful behavioral context beyond a bare 'search'. However it says nothing about permissions, index scope, cost, latency, or whether results are truncated, so for a zero-annotation tool the coverage is only partial.

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 short sentences with zero filler; the action is front-loaded and the return information follows immediately. Nothing could be cut without losing 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?

An output schema exists, so the description needn't enumerate return values, yet it does so anyway, which is a slight redundancy rather than a flaw. The real gap is parameter and mode guidance for a retrieval tool with three parameters and 0% schema coverage, plus no differentiation from 'ask'.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does not. 'top-k' implicitly explains the k parameter, but the 'mode' enum (hybrid/vector/bm25) — the most consequential parameter for result quality — gets no explanation of what each mode does or when to pick one, and 'query' semantics (natural language vs keywords) are unaddressed.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: search the indexed documents, returning top-k passages. An agent knows immediately this is retrieval. The only gap is that it never distinguishes itself from the sibling 'ask' tool, which is presumably also document-facing, so selection between the two is left to inference.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the alternative 'ask'. The agent must guess whether 'ask' is a higher-level RAG answer tool and this is the raw retrieval tool.

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