Search documentation

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, and the description's 'Read-only' restates that. It earns credit beyond the annotations by disclosing result behavior: ranked passages with specific fields, long passages being truncated and requiring get_passage, and the fact that other versions are surfaced separately with a path_prefix to re-query.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose ('Start here') before result shape and versioning details. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the run-on sentence covering results, truncation, identifier support, versioning, and source listing packs a lot into one block.

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 compensates by naming the return fields (id, title, heading path, citation_url, text) and explaining truncation, versioning, and source scoping. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and to follow up with siblings.

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 coverage is 100%, so 3 is the baseline, but the description adds interpretation the schema lacks: query accepts natural-language questions and code identifiers (getUserName, --dry-run, a.b.c), and path_prefix can carry an other_versions prefix from a previous search. Default limit and source_ids behavior are covered in the schema itself.

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+resource ('full-text search over the documentation indexed on this machine') and immediately distinguishes itself from siblings by pointing to get_passage for full reads and list_sources for source discovery. An agent can tell what this tool does and what it is not without opening any schema.

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?

'Start here' explicitly frames this as the entry point, and the description names the alternatives with their triggering conditions: read shortened passages with get_passage, enumerate sources with list_sources, and pass an other_versions path_prefix back into search to query older versions. Explicit when/when-not/alternatives routing is present.

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