search_documentation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the search mechanism (keyword/fuzzy) and the repository scope, but does not mention behavior like result ranking, pagination, or what happens with no results. It is not misleading, but it is thin on behavioral detail beyond the search mode.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: the first gives the trigger condition, the second the mechanism and scope, the third the alternative to avoid. Front-loaded with the most important usage signal. 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?

For a search tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core usage context well: when to use, what it searches, and how it behaves. It lacks detail on result format and limit semantics, but the schema covers the limit parameter's range and default, so the description is reasonably complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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%: 'query' and 'sdkVersion' have descriptions, but 'limit' has none. The description adds context that the search is keyword/fuzzy and scoped to Udon/VRChat docs, which helps interpret the query parameter, but it does not add detail for 'limit' or 'sdkVersion' beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('search'), a resource ('indexed agent-skills repo'), and a clear scope ('Udon/VRChat docs question'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the domain it covers and explicitly warning against inventing APIs from general C# knowledge.

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 explicitly says WHEN to use it ('before answering any Udon/VRChat docs question') and HOW ('keyword/fuzzy search the indexed agent-skills repo'). It also provides a clear exclusion: prefer this over inventing APIs from general C# knowledge. This is strong usage guidance.

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