search_docs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it does disclose useful behavior: ranked snippet+URL results, a 1-12 limit with default 6, and the meaning of each version value including the concrete 'current' (26.1). It says nothing about permissions, result size, pagination, or whether queries are fuzzy, so a meaningful gap remains for a read tool whose output schema is present.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and every Args line carries information not present elsewhere. The Args block itself is a slightly clunky format, but nothing pads or repeats unnecessarily.

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?

With 5 parameters, one required, no annotations, and an output schema already covering return values, the definition supplies enough to invoke the tool correctly: full parameter semantics and version/section vocabularies. It stops short of saying when to prefer it over the get_*/find_symbol siblings.

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 carry all parameter meaning — and it does. It defines query with concrete examples, enumerates the section filter values ('docs', 'toolchain', 'user', 'modpack') that the schema does not constrain, gives the limit range 1-12, and explains mode='text' vs 'api'.

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 (search) and resource (NeoForge docs) plus the return shape (ranked section snippets with URLs), which is more than a restatement of the name. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as get_doc, get_section, or find_symbol, so an agent must infer the split itself.

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 only implied: the parameter documentation (section filters, mode='api', version options) hints at when each option applies, and mode='api' gestures toward identifier lookup. There is no explicit statement of when to choose this over get_doc/get_section/find_symbol, nor any exclusions.

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