search_docs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that matching is semantic rather than keyword-based, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it doesn't explain what the returned 'content' looks like, any limits, or authentication requirements, leaving some gaps.

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 just two short sentences with no redundant information. It front-loads the core purpose and adds a meaningful behavioral detail about semantic matching. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool is simple with one fully documented parameter, but there is no output schema or annotations. The description clarifies the purpose and semantic matching but doesn't describe the return format or scope of results. This is a minor gap, making it adequate but not complete.

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?

The schema fully describes the 'query' parameter as a natural language question or keywords (100% coverage). The description adds no parameter-specific information, so the schema already provides the necessary meaning. 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's function: searching documentation and returning semantically relevant content. The verb 'search' and resource 'documentation' are specific, and since there are no sibling tools, differentiation is not an issue. However, 'documentation' is somewhat broad, so it doesn't earn 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 implies the tool is for finding information in documentation, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it or when not to. There are no sibling tools to contrast with, so the lack of alternatives is understandable, but the description still doesn't offer any usage context beyond the basic purpose.

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