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 behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's behavior: semantic search returning relevant documentation chunks with relevance scores and document references, explains how to handle referenced documents, and provides important implementation guidance (e.g., OAuth prerequisites, recommended starting documents). It doesn't mention rate limits or authentication requirements beyond OAuth, but covers most behavioral aspects well.

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 comprehensive but verbose, with multiple sections (DOCUMENTATION PATH SELECTION, Helpful Hints, Common use cases, Note) that could be more streamlined. While all content is relevant, it could be more front-loaded and concise. Some redundancy exists in explaining the relationship with read-documentation tool.

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 complexity (semantic search across documentation corpus with path filtering) and no output schema, the description provides substantial context: explains result format (snippets with relevance scores and references), relationship to sibling tool, implementation guidance, and extensive usage rules. It lacks explicit information about output structure details, but covers most aspects needed for effective use.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant value beyond the schema by explaining the semantics of documentationPath parameter through the detailed documentation path tree and helpful hints that guide parameter selection. It provides context about how to choose appropriate paths based on query intent, which goes beyond the schema's basic 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search through documentation using a natural language query' and 'provides semantic search capabilities across the entire API documentation corpus.' It specifically distinguishes from its sibling tool 'read-documentation' by explaining that search-documentation returns snippets while read-documentation fetches complete documents.

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 extensive guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, including explicit rules for documentation path selection (e.g., 'If you are searching for code generation/building applications → API Swagger Model'), when to use the sibling read-documentation tool, and common use cases. It also specifies when NOT to provide a documentation path ('If nothing is relevant, search across all the documentation paths. DO NOT provide any documentation path').

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