docs_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the exact search corpus, the returned artifact (passages with file and line), and the configurable docsRoot. For a read-only search tool, this is sufficient disclosure; there are no destructive or side-effect behaviors that need explaining.

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: action and scope first, then usage guidance, then configuration note. Every sentence 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?

The description plus the fully documented schema provide everything needed to invoke this tool correctly: what it searches, what it returns, when to use it, and how to configure the docs root. No output schema exists, but the high-level return information is adequate for a passage-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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about the docs root and result passages, but it does not add much meaning to specific parameters beyond what the schema already documents.

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 names a specific verb ('Search'), a specific resource ('the project's own documentation — README and any markdown/text/pdf docs under the configured docs root'), and the result shape ('matching passages with file and line'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like source_search or docs_outline by corpus and operation.

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 gives a concrete when-to-use scenario: 'Use it to learn what a screen, field or business term means in this app, instead of inferring it from the UI.' It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to route to it appropriately.

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