search_docs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond purpose—no mention of result format, pagination, or whether the search is scoped to a specific project. Since annotations carry the safety information, this is a gap, but not a contradiction.

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 a single, tightly written sentence. It front-loads the verb and resource, contains no filler, and every word contributes meaning. This is an efficient definition.

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 complete schema annotations and a read-only, idempotent profile, the description adequately states the core action. However, with no output schema, the agent is left to guess what the result structure looks like (e.g., snippets, links, relevance scores). This is a modest gap, but not a major one for a simple search operation.

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?

The input schema provides descriptions for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds slight value by clarifying that queries can target an 'endpoint or concept', which hints at the expected query semantics, but it does not meaningfully supplement the schema descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search'), a clear resource ('API documentation'), and a scope ('endpoint or concept'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_endpoint and list_endpoints, which are all retrieval/list operations, whereas this is a search operation.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_endpoint or list_endpoints. It does not state whether to use it when the endpoint path is unknown or how it relates to the sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer routing from the tool name alone.

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