search_docs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it discloses the return shape, the 1-50 hit range, the default host, and the allowed hosts. It omits auth/rate-limit or error behavior, which is a modest gap for a read-only search.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then output format, then chaining and parameter guidance. Dense but each sentence earns its place, with only mild verbosity in the host enumeration.

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, and the description still adds chaining and parameter guidance beyond it. With 5 of 6 parameters documented and follow-up routing explained, it is nearly complete, missing only locale and any auth caveats.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it documents limit (1-50), product with concrete examples and catalog matching, version with examples, and host with allowed values and default. Only locale is left undocumented.

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 ('Full-text search of Siemens documentation') and scopes it to a domain. It also frames the result's role by pointing to read_page/get_toc for follow-up, letting an agent place it among its siblings without opening a 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?

It routes follow-up actions clearly ('Pass a result's reader URL to read_page or get_toc') and points to list_publications for valid product/version values. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it versus list_publications, but the intended context is clear.

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