search_docs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the search scope ('across all docs') but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't specify if results are paginated, what the return format is (e.g., list of titles or full content snippets), or any rate limits. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 moderate complexity (search with 2 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or behavioral constraints, leaving significant gaps for the agent to infer.

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%, meaning parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description mentions 'keyword/phrase' which hints at the 'query' parameter, but it doesn't explain 'max_results' or provide any syntax details (e.g., query operators). It adds minimal value beyond the bare schema, failing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 action ('Searches') and target resource ('across all docs') with the method ('by keyword/phrase'). It distinguishes this from siblings like 'get_doc_content' (retrieves specific content) and 'list_docs' (likely lists without search). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_llm_full_context', which might be a more comprehensive search, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer 'search_docs' over 'list_docs' or 'get_llm_full_context', nor does it specify prerequisites like needing a query. This leaves the agent with minimal context for tool selection.

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