search_docs

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so no contradiction. The description adds useful behavioral detail by specifying that the result includes numbered snippets with source URLs, and the parameter descriptions disclose truncation and clamping behavior, going beyond the minimal annotation info.

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 well-structured: a purpose sentence, a usage directive, a language tip, and then concise parameter explanations. No redundant or filler content; every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, output schema present), the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, how to use it, parameter semantics, and output format. The presence of an output schema means detailed return structure is not needed in the description, so completeness is high.

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 has no descriptions for the parameters (0% coverage), but the description fully compensates by explaining query as 'What to search for' with a 300-character truncation limit, and k as 'How many snippets to return' with a 1–8 range and clamping. This adds complete meaning to both parameters.

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 clearly states the tool's function: searching the Li documentation and returning numbered snippets with source URLs. It also explicitly says to use it for every factual claim about Liara, which contrasts with the sibling tools (read_page, platform_docs, diagnose_log) that serve different purposes.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this for every factual claim about Liara.' It also gives concrete query formulation instructions (use the user's own words plus the product name, both Persian and English work), making the usage context unmistakable.

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