search_documentation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does well: it discloses that results are summaries/IDs not full docs, that pagination is available, and crucially that it "reads documentation, not live API data" (read-only, static source). It omits any auth, rate-limit, or result-size behavior.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the entry condition and scope, then result shape, then usage steps. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition.

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?

Covers the essentials for a search tool with no annotations and no output schema: source (docs, not live data), result shape, and next step. The unexplained doc_url parameter and the untouched get_document/list_endpoints siblings are the remaining gap.

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 all four parameters (query, limit, offset, doc_url) are undocumented by structured data. The phrase "paginate when the user asks for all" implies limit/offset exist and when to use them, but doc_url is never explained and no syntax or format is given for query.

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: it ranks endpoints by API concepts matched from a phrase, and explicitly scopes the return to short summaries and IDs rather than full docs. It is clearly distinguishable from get_endpoint, which it names as the follow-up for actual routes.

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?

"Start here for broad tasks" gives a clear entry condition, and "then use get_endpoint for needed routes" names the follow-up tool. "paginate when the user asks for all" gives a concrete usage rule. It never contrasts with get_document or list_endpoints, so sibling routing is incomplete.

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