search_networking

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It hints at content source ('docs/templates') and preferred patterns, but it does not disclose return format, ordering, pagination limits, side effects, or failure behavior. For a search tool, the agent is left guessing what the response contains.

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 sentences with clear WHEN/HOW labels, no filler, and the most actionable condition is front-loaded. The abbreviation 'Manual + RequestSerialization' is slightly cryptic without context, but overall the structure is efficient and scannable.

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?

There is no output schema, no annotations, and 18 sibling tools, many overlapping as search utilities (search_documentation, search_constraints, search_examples). The description explains when to call it but not what results to expect or what distinguishes this search from siblings. This is insufficient for reliable tool selection and invocation.

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 50%, with only 'query' having a description ('Networking topic to search'). The tool description adds no additional meaning to either parameter: it doesn't explain query syntax, what makes a good query, or what 'limit' affects. The description neither compensates for the undocumented 'limit' nor enriches the documented 'query', so 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 gives clear scope (networking topics, ownership, sync mode, late joiners, serialization, RPC) and instructs to search and prefer Manual + RequestSerialization patterns. However, it never states a direct verb+resource definition like 'Searches networking documentation and returns relevant results.' The verb 'search' only appears in a workflow instruction, so the core purpose is inferred from the name and context rather than stated.

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?

Explicitly provides trigger conditions: 'WHEN: any ownership, sync mode, late joiners, serialization, or RPC work' and a workflow rule 'search before writing synced fields.' This is strong guidance, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name sibling tools as alternatives, so it falls short of the full 5.

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