search_docs

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states the basic purpose and examples, omitting details about search method (e.g., full-text vs semantic), result format, scope, or any behavioral traits beyond 'search'.

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?

Two efficient sentences: first states purpose, second gives concrete examples. No redundant information, front-loaded with core action and resource.

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 no output schema and many sibling tools, the description is adequate but leaves gaps: it doesn't mention the optional 'tags' or 'max_results' parameters, doesn't clarify the search algorithm (e.g., fuzzy vs exact), and doesn't explain what results contain (IDs, snippets, etc.).

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% (all parameters have descriptions), so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter detail beyond what the schema provides, such as query examples or usage hints for 'tags' or 'max_results'.

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 verb 'Search' and the resource 'C64 knowledge base', with examples of documentation topics. It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_code' (for code) and 'search_entities' (for entities) by focusing on documentation, though it could be more 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?

It provides a clear use case ('Use this to find documentation...'), implying when to use it, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives among the many sibling search tools.

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