search_docs

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it delivers meaningful behavior: matching is substring and case-insensitive, search is confined to an allowlisted prefix, and the result cap defaults to an environment-configured value (DP_MCP_MAX_SEARCH_RESULTS). It does not cover ordering of results or whether truncation is signaled, but the core matching and safety-scope behavior is disclosed.

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?

A front-loaded one-line summary followed by a compact per-parameter list, with no filler. The structure is efficient, though the parameter lines read as legend text rather than integrated prose.

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?

A read-only search with three parameters and an output schema, so return values need not be described. The description covers scope, matching rules, and every parameter, leaving only minor gaps like result ordering and truncation signaling.

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 document all three params, and it does: query is the text matched against the object key, path restricts to a subfolder, max_results is an optional cap with a named default source. Only path format/nesting conventions are left unspecified.

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 object keys/names') plus a real scope ('under the allowlisted prefix') and match semantics (substring, case-insensitive). It implicitly separates itself from key-based lookups like get_entity, though it never names the sibling search tools it overlaps with.

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?

Usage is implied by the scoping language: it searches key/name text only, so an agent can infer it is for finding objects by name rather than by full-text content. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or comparison against search_entities / search_evidence, which share the 'search' surface.

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