search_documentation

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 mentions the tool is 'Útil para encontrar' items, implying it's a read-only search operation, but doesn't explicitly state it's non-destructive or safe. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens with invalid inputs. The description adds some context about requiring exact slugs but lacks comprehensive behavioral disclosure.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. The IMPORTANTE section efficiently handles prerequisites, and examples are relevant. However, the Spanish language might add slight cognitive load for non-Spanish agents, and the structure could be slightly tighter (e.g., combining the first two lines).

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose, prerequisites, and examples but lacks details about return format, error handling, or pagination (implied by 'limit' parameter). For a search tool with 3 parameters and no structured output documentation, it should provide more about what results look like or how they're structured.

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%, providing good documentation for all three parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it reinforces that 'tech' requires an exact slug (implied in schema's examples) and provides example queries, but doesn't explain parameter interactions or search semantics (e.g., how 'query' matches text). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does most of the work.

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 the tool searches within a specific documentation index and provides examples of what it finds (classes, functions, methods, modules). It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_across_docs' by specifying it searches within a single documentation index rather than across multiple. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_documentation_index' which might retrieve the index itself rather than search within it.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Primero debes saber el slug exacto de la documentación. Usa list_documentations para encontrarlo.' It provides a clear prerequisite and directs to a specific alternative tool (list_documentations) for obtaining required information. The examples also illustrate appropriate use cases.

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