search_doc_for_rag_context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'searches and retrieves' but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or how results are formatted (e.g., pagination, ranking). For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 appropriately sized with three sentences: purpose, parameter explanation, and return value. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and avoids unnecessary fluff. However, the structure could be slightly improved by integrating the 'Args' and 'Returns' sections more seamlessly into the flow.

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 (search/retrieval operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain behavioral traits, usage context, or return format details (beyond stating it returns a string). For a tool that likely involves data retrieval and potential constraints, more comprehensive information is needed.

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 description includes an 'Args' section that documents the single parameter 'query' as 'The search query supplied by the user.' With 0% schema description coverage, this adds essential meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't provide details on query syntax, length limits, or special characters, leaving some semantic gaps. The baseline is 3 since the description compensates partially but not fully.

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: 'Searches and retrieves relevant context from a knowledge base, based on the user's query.' It specifies the verb ('searches and retrieves'), resource ('relevant context from a knowledge base'), and scope ('based on the user's query'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'process_search_query' or 'ingest_documents', which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'process_search_query' or 'ingest_documents', nor does it specify prerequisites, constraints, or appropriate contexts for usage. This leaves the agent without direction on tool selection.

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