search_documentation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read behavior is known. The description adds that results are ranked 'by term frequency across headed sections' and returns 'source file, section heading, and a snippet', which goes beyond annotations. No contradictions with 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?

Two concise sentences: first sentence defines purpose and usage context, second explains ranking and output. No redundancy or filler. Front-loaded with key information.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage guidelines, ranking method, and return structure. With simple parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It lacks explicit mention of error behavior or authentication, but these are less critical for a read-only search tool.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters ('Search terms' and 'Max results'). The description does not add new parameter-level details beyond the schema, but the ranking and return format context (part of description) indirectly informs parameter usage. Given high schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Hatchable's own documentation' for 'platform behavior', listing specific topics (routing, SDK surface, deploy semantics, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'search_projects' by specifying the source (Hatchable docs vs project files) and provides a use case (call when unsure how a feature works).

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 explicitly says 'Call this instead of guessing when you're unsure how a Hatchable feature works', providing clear guidance on when to use the tool. It implies not to use it for searching project code (which would be 'search_projects' or 'grep'), but does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use it.

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