search_docs

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal the return shape: pages ranked by relevance with paths and descriptions. It does not mention error behavior, query syntax nuances, or any rate or access considerations, but for a read-only search tool it gives the most important behavioral detail.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: the first states the action, the second states when to use it, and the third states the return format and follow-up. The most important scoping information is front-loaded, and every clause earns its place.

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 two-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential usage and return values: pages ranked by relevance with paths and descriptions. It also names the logical next step. Minor gaps like pagination or empty-result behavior are not critical for basic 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds context about the query being for keywords, concepts, or topics, which adds a little meaning. This matches the baseline of 3 since the schema already handles the heavy lifting.

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 searches a documentation set and returns matching pages, which distinguishes it from the sibling list_docs and get_docs_index. It also names get_docs_page as the follow-up, giving the agent a sense of how it fits into a workflow. However, it does not explicitly contrast with get_docs_full or get_docs_index, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

It says 'Use this to find pages containing particular keywords, concepts, or topics,' which is clear guidance for when to invoke it. It also suggests a follow-up action with get_docs_page. It does not state when to prefer alternatives like get_docs_full or get_docs_index, but the provided context is enough for a simple search scenario.

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