docs_search

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: indexed-scope limitation, ranking, a did_you_mean fallback, and 200-character truncation of signatures/summaries. It stops short of explaining scoring or pagination semantics.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and routing advice, then cleanly sectioned into Args/Returns. Loses a point for duplicating keyword lists in both the opening parenthetical and the trailing 'Keywords:' line, which is redundant padding.

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?

With six parameters, 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description compensates fully by documenting every argument and the exact return shape ({results, count, truncated, did_you_mean}), plus scope limits and next-step tools.

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 the description carries the full burden and does: it explains each of the six parameters, including that camelCase/snake_case/dotted identifiers match by parts, gives concrete values for ecosystem and kind, and specifies limit defaults (8) and max (50).

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 ('Ranked full-text search over indexed APIs, offline docsets and markdown docs') and explicitly separates itself from siblings by naming api_lookup and docs_read as the follow-up steps once a result is chosen.

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?

Gives an explicit selection condition ('Use it when you know roughly what you need but not the exact name') with concrete examples, names the alternatives to use afterwards (api_lookup on qualname, docs_read on section id), and states the boundary 'Only searches what is already indexed.'

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