Search documentation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the return shape (snippet, page path, heading anchor), which matters because there is no output schema. It does not mention ranking or token-size characteristics of results.

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?

Three short sentences: what it does, what it returns, and what to do next. Zero redundancy and the highest-value information (return shape and the get_doc handoff) comes early.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the missing return-value context, and it covers the follow-up navigation to get_doc. For a three-parameter read-only search tool with fully documented params, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is absent.

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 query, limit and path_prefix are all documented in the schema itself, including the prefix/fuzzy matching behavior. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Full-text search over the documentation') and immediately clarifies the result scope: matching sections with snippet, page path and heading anchor. This distinguishes it from get_doc (full page reads) by describing exactly what kind of object each returns.

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?

Explicitly prescribes the follow-up workflow: 'Call get_doc with a returned path to read the full page or a single section,' which is the key routing decision for this tool pair. It lacks an explicit negative case (e.g., when to use list_docs instead of searching), so it falls short of a 5.

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