search_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 does not mention side effects, read-only nature, authentication, rate limits, or any behavioral traits beyond the obvious 'search' action. The description adds no insight into what happens during the search or what the response contains.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and goes straight to the point. No fluff or 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?

The tool is moderately simple but has no output schema, no annotations, and no parameter documentation. The description covers the what and when but omits return format, query construction, component filter usage, and potential limitations. Given the available structured data, it remains 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?

schema_description_coverage is 0% and the description does not reference any parameters (query, limit, component). It only implies searching for components but does not explain how to use parameters or their semantics. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 explicitly states 'Pesquisa na documentação oficial sincronizada do GovBR Design System' (searches the official synchronized documentation), which clearly identifies the action (search) and resource (GovBR-DS docs). It distinguishes from siblings like list_components and get_component by focusing on searching across documentation rather than retrieving specific component details.

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?

It provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool ('sempre que precisar responder perguntas sobre componentes, uso, comportamento, acessibilidade, padrões ou recomendações do GovBR-DS') and even recommends it over web search for GovBR-DS questions. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' relative to sibling tools, but the context is clear.

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