search_docs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the return shape ('matching sections with source links') and that the corpus is an index (hinting at the sync_docs dependency), but says nothing about pagination/limit behavior, result ranking, index staleness, or that the operation is read-only.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with purpose and scope, then the enum values, then the return shape. No filler or repetition.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out. The critical enum ambiguity in the schema is resolved by the description, and purpose is clear; the only residual gap is the undocumented 'limit' parameter and the absence of any read-only/side-effect statement.

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 0% and the schema leaves 'kind' as a bare string with no enum, so the description's enumeration 'all|card|guide|extra|wiki' adds real meaning the schema does not provide. It also clarifies that 'query' is a full-text query; only 'limit' remains undocumented by both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb (full-text search) and resource (indexed official Serpent documentation), and enumerates the covered corpora (syntax manual, user guide, appendices, wiki). An agent can distinguish it from retrieval siblings like get_reference, get_card, get_examples, and from the index-management tool sync_docs.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase 'indexed official Serpent documentation' suggests this is the tool for fuzzy lookup across all docs, versus the more targeted get_* siblings. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not, and no named alternative for cases like fetching a known reference or example.

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