search_docs

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, closed-world safety profile, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral value by disclosing the sectionIndex handoff to get_guide, telling the agent how results are consumed; it omits pagination/limit semantics.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the search scope and ending with the required follow-up. No filler, every clause carries 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?

With no output schema, the description does well to explain the sectionIndex return path, and annotations carry the safety profile. But with 0% schema coverage and an undocumented platform enum, the definition leaves the caller without enough detail on how to shape a query.

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% for all three parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It says nothing about the 'query' string, the 'limit' default/max, or the 'platform' enum values (javascript, react, vue, etc.), leaving the enum's meaning to inference.

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 (Search) and resource (documentation sections) and enumerates the covered domains (SDK methods, installation, auth, errors, API routes, UI behavior). An agent can distinguish it from list_guides/get_guide without opening any schema.

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?

Names the follow-up action explicitly: 'Use get_guide to read a returned sectionIndex', which routes the agent through the search-then-read workflow. It does not, however, say when to prefer get_code_examples or get_integration_plan over this tool.

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