search_documentation

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the full burden. It mentions matching modes but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, whether authentication is required, what happens with no results, or how results are ordered. Minimal behavioral context.

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?

Single sentence with no wasted words. However, it could be more informative while remaining concise.

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?

For a search tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and many siblings, the description is too brief. It lacks information on return format, pagination, default behavior, and how it differs from other search_* tools. Incomplete for effective selection and use.

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 67% (2 of 3 parameters have descriptions). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what is in the schema. Baseline score 3 is appropriate since coverage is above 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?

Description clearly states the tool searches 'agent-skills-vrc-udon documentation' with three matching types (keyword, heading, fuzzy). It is specific about the action and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling search tools like search_antipattern or search_best_practice, which are more specific.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given many sibling search tools with specific scopes, the description could indicate that this is a general documentation search. Without such context, the agent may select it incorrectly.

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