search_docs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds useful context about what gets returned (doc page links with snippets and matching example projects), which isn't covered by annotations. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination behavior.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence establishes purpose and scope, while the second describes the return format. No wasted words, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 (4 parameters, 3 with enums) and rich annotations, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage context, and return format. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail about the structure of returned results (e.g., pagination, error handling).

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 100%, with all parameters well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3. The description does imply the tool supports filtering (via platform, chain, category), but this is already explicit in the schema.

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 searches MetaMask Embedded Wallets documentation and examples, specifying the exact resource (documentation and examples) and purpose (SDK discovery, feature lookup, finding examples). It distinguishes from siblings like get_doc (single document), get_example (single example), get_sdk_reference (reference material), and search_community (community content).

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 clear context for when to use this tool (SDK discovery, feature lookup, finding examples), but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives. The sibling tools suggest different use cases, but the description doesn't contrast them directly.

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