search_documentation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states the tool searches documentation but does not mention pagination behavior, rate limits, side effects, or how results are returned. The schema implies pagination via 'page' and 'limit' parameters, but this is not surfaced in the description.

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 consists of two short sentences, which is concise and front-loaded. Every sentence adds value, though the structure is minimal. A 4 is given because it is efficient but not exceptionally organized.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is somewhat lacking. It does not explain the return format, pagination behavior, or how to effectively use parameters. For a search tool, this is adequate but incomplete.

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?

All 5 parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no additional meaning beyond what is already in the schema; it does not explain parameter interactions or provide usage examples.

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 project documentation and API references for patterns and examples. It uses the verb 'search' and specifies the resource, making the purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_document_index' or 'explore_api', so a 4 is appropriate.

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 includes the phrase 'Use early and often to stay aligned with current docs,' which provides a general usage hint but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or when to prefer alternatives. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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