search_versioned_docs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the retrieval engine (FTS5/BM25) and the lockfile-based version fallback, but says nothing about result ranking, chunk format, or any limits beyond the search mechanism itself.

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?

Two dense sentences that front-load the purpose and then the version-resolution behavior. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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 six-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and the version fallback, but omits what a result looks like and how ranking/filtering behaves. It is workable but leaves gaps an agent might want covered.

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 schema already documents all six parameters thoroughly. The description restates the version-resolution fallback but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb (searches) and a well-scoped resource (tag-pinned migration guides, release notes, deprecation notices for a specific library version). It clarifies its retrieval mechanism (SQLite FTS5/BM25), but does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_versioned_setup_guide or get_upgrade_steps.

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 resource description (find version-specific migration information), and the version-resolution fallback is noted, but there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives guidance naming the sibling tools.

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