doc_search_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses output details (ranked, snippets, line/col positions) and a plan restriction ('PRO+ plan'), but does not state whether the operation is read-only, mention pagination, or describe error behavior. This adds some value but leaves key behavioral traits unstated.

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 single sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action and output details. Every word adds value, with no filler or repetition of the tool name.

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?

For a low-complexity tool, this is close to adequate, but the lack of an output schema increases the burden on the description. It mentions snippets and positions but does not describe the overall return structure, whether multiple matches are returned, or how to invoke it (e.g., query parameter). The 'PRO+ plan' note is a useful constraint but not enough for full completeness.

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 schema has zero defined parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information, but since there are no documented params, this is acceptable. The presence of 'additionalProperties: true' is ambiguous, but the description's silence on parameters is not penalized heavily given the empty schema.

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 it performs 'full-text search' with 'ranked' results, and specifies output features like 'snippets and line/col positions.' This distinguishes it from siblings like doc_grep or doc_search_symbols, though it does not explicitly name the corpus being searched.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only says 'PRO+ plan,' which indicates a prerequisite but offers no context about use cases or exclusions. Given the many sibling search tools, this is a notable gap.

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