search_docs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: accent/case-insensitive matching, exact-pattern phrase mode, that max_chars bounds total extract size, and that truncation is avoidable by following next_call. Minor gap: no direct statement about scope of the doc set or result ordering beyond 'pertinence'.

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 compact, front-loaded paragraph where each sentence adds a distinct fact (scope, matching rules, phrase mode, branch restriction, size cap, result contents, pagination). No filler, though the density borders on terse.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is not required, but the description still leaves four of eight parameters (offset, max_results, context_lines, expected_revision) unexplained for a non-trivial search tool. Adequate but with clear gaps for an 8-parameter definition.

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% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully explains mode, page_prefix (with an example path), and max_chars, and implies query semantics, but leaves offset, max_results, context_lines, and expected_revision entirely undocumented in both schema and description. Partial compensation only.

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 and resource: a local, relevance-ranked search over the ROMEO documentation bundled with the MCP. It distinguishes itself from read_doc implicitly by noting results carry read_args to read the full section. Clear enough to select without opening the schema, though read_doc is never named as the contrasting alternative.

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?

Gives concrete context (accepts keywords or free-form questions, accents/case insensitive, mode='phrase' for exact patterns) and tells the agent to follow next_call to page through results. However it never states when to use this versus read_doc or other siblings, leaving the routing decision implicit.

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