mcdev_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 behavioral burden. It does usefully disclose the corpus origin (bundled Markdown sourced from the GitHub wiki), implying local/offline retrieval and possible staleness, but says nothing about ranking, snippet format, or freshness relative to the live wiki.

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 single front-loaded sentence with the verb and corpus stated first, followed by the topical scope. No filler, though the trailing keyword list reads more like tags than prose.

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?

Adequate for a two-parameter search tool, but with no output schema and no annotations the description leaves the return shape (file paths? snippets? scores?) unstated and gives no hint about result freshness or whether the query supports multiple keywords. Minimum viable rather than complete.

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 both parameters (query, limit with default 8 and max 25) are already documented in the schema. The description adds only topical keyword hints for what a query should contain; baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (Search) and a precisely bounded resource (bundled sfmc-devtools wiki Markdown from GitHub wiki), plus the topical coverage: configuration, commands, markets, createDeltaPkg, build, validations. This scope makes it distinguishable from topical siblings like mcdev_explain_config_key, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 topic list implies when the tool is useful (questions about mcdev config, commands, build/validation), but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives such as mcdev_explain_config_key for single-key questions. Usage is left to inference.

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