doc_search_by_anchor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral details. It only states the basic action ('search') and the plan requirement. It does not mention return format, read-only nature, errors for non-PRO+ users, or any other side effects. The 'PRO+ plan' is a small hint but insufficient.

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?

The description is extremely concise: 'Search doc sections by anchor. PRO+ plan.' Both sentences earn their place — one for function, one for restriction. No fluff, but it is so short that it omits essential details, balancing conciseness against completeness.

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?

Despite being part of a large sibling tool family and having no output schema or annotations, the description provides minimal context. It does not explain what an anchor is, what response to expect, or when to choose this over alternatives. For a search tool, this is notably incomplete.

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?

The input schema has no documented parameters (0 params), and the description mentions 'by anchor' but does not specify how the anchor is passed. Since the schema allows additionalProperties, there may be hidden parameters, but the description doesn't clarify. With 0 params the baseline is 4, but the anchor concept implies an unspecified parameter, so a 3 is appropriate.

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's function: 'Search doc sections by anchor.' This is a specific verb+resource combination, and 'by anchor' distinguishes it from sibling search tools like doc_search_text or doc_search_symbols. However, it doesn't elaborate on what 'anchor' means, which slightly reduces clarity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling search tools. No alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites are mentioned. The only additional note, 'PRO+ plan,' indicates a licensing constraint but doesn't help with decision-making.

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