search_docs

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the tool's behavior: ranks paths by token overlap, does not download content, returns specific fields, and does not require a Houdini connection. This is excellent transparency for a read-only search operation, leaving no surprises.

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?

Three short sentences with every sentence contributing unique information: purpose, ranking method, return format, and connection independence. Front-loaded and highly efficient, with no filler.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (2 simple params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers what the tool does, how it works, what it returns, and a key environmental constraint. The explicit return fields substitute for an output schema, making the description self-sufficient.

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 query and top_k, but the description only implicitly covers query via 'token overlap' and never mentions top_k or its role as a result count. With 0% schema coverage, the description should explicitly tie parameters to behavior, though the simplicity of the parameters mitigates the gap.

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 searches Houdini documentation via an online proxy, identifying a specific resource and action. It distinguishes itself from doc-retrieval tools like get_doc or get_node_doc by emphasizing no content download, no Houdini connection, and returning search results with scores.

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 a clear usage context: use this when you need to search documentation without a Houdini connection. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use it (e.g., when you need full doc content). The sibling list implies alternatives but the description could be more explicit.

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