search_docs

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

The description mentions BM25, adding some algorithmic transparency. However, it omits critical details like read-only nature, result format, ordering, and case sensitivity, which are especially important given the absence of 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 extremely concise (one sentence). While it avoids waste, it sacrifices necessary detail about parameters and usage, making it too terse for effective agent guidance.

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 low tool complexity (2 params, no nested objects) and presence of an output schema, the description is barely sufficient for selection but fails to provide input parameter details needed for correct invocation. Usage context and behavioral details are missing.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain either parameter (query or limit). An agent must infer semantics solely from parameter names and default values, which is insufficient for reliable invocation.

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') and resource ('synthetic/ingested docs') with method ('BM25'), distinguishing it from sibling search tools like search_apis and search_recipes. However, it does not specify the nature of the documents beyond 'synthetic/ingested'.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_apis or search_recipes. The description provides no context for appropriate usage scenarios or exclusions.

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