Search Docs Multi

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does convey a key behavior: the same query is searched 'simultaneously' across multiple libraries, and it implies a read-only search operation. However, it does not disclose the underlying Serper API dependency, potential rate limits, or what happens when a library key is invalid. These are meaningful gaps given there are no annotations.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. The core sentence is immediately followed by a clear 'Ideal for...' usage signal and three illustrative examples. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

The description, combined with a fully documented schema and an output schema, covers purpose, usage, and query framing well. It is nearly complete for a multi-library search tool. The main missing contextual piece is explicit routing guidance to get_docs for single-library searches or to list_libraries when library keys are uncertain, but these are minor gaps.

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%, so the input schema already documents query, libraries, and serper_api_key well. The description adds helpful real-world examples of query phrasing and reinforces the 'same query' semantics, but it does not materially extend parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides. 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search the same query across multiple libraries simultaneously.' It clearly identifies what the tool does and immediately distinguishes it from single-library alternatives like get_docs by emphasizing multi-library search. The example queries reinforce the purpose and add concrete framing.

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 states when to use it: 'Ideal for comparing how different frameworks handle the same concept.' It provides three concrete example query patterns, which strongly guide an agent on intended usage. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or point to get_docs for single-library searches, so it stops short of a full 5.

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