search_docs

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that missing pages are fetched live and cached before searching, returns up to 10 case-insensitive paragraph-level snippets with section names and text ≤500 chars, and defaults to latest version. It does not mention rate limits or auth, but the caching and search behavior are well described. No contradictions.

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 concise, with each sentence adding value. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds caching and output details, finally listing parameters in an Args block. No wasted words.

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 3 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, caching behavior, output format (up to 10 snippets with section name and snippet ≤500 chars), and parameter semantics. The agent can correctly invoke this tool without further clarification.

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%, so description adds essential meaning: package is 'Package name as returned by list_packages()', query is 'Free-text search query', version is 'Docs version slug (default: "latest")' with guidance to use list_doc_versions() to discover versions. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 package documentation for a query string, with specific details about caching and return format. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_doc_section or fetch_latest_docs by focusing on search across documentation, not fetching a single section or full docs. The verb 'search' and resource 'package documentation' are explicit.

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 advises to call list_doc_versions(package) first if the user asks about a specific older version, providing clear context for when to use this tool versus list_doc_versions. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or compare it to other search or fetch tools among siblings.

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