docs_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does add one meaningful behavior: body matching is limited to cached bodies. But it does not disclose pagination, result ordering, or read-only safety, and gives no return-shape expectations.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler; every phrase ('by keyword', the field list) carries selection and invocation value.

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 one-parameter search tool with a clear purpose, the description is nearly complete. It could mention whether search is exact/substring and what it returns, but those are not blockers for an agent deciding to call it.

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 schema only declares keyword as a string with 0% coverage; the description compensates by defining the keyword as matching titles, descriptions, and cached bodies. It does not specify match semantics, but for a one-string parameter the agent has enough to make the call.

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 the specific verb 'Search' with the knowledge base as the resource and lists the searched fields (titles, descriptions, cached bodies), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like docs_get_page or docs_list_pages.

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 phrase 'by keyword' supplies the main use condition, and the field list says what will be matched, so an agent knows when to call it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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