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 implies a read-only search but does not disclose behavior such as pagination, network access, result limits, or failure modes. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond the title.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the action and object, no filler. However, it is so terse that it sacrifices useful guidance; still, as written, it is concise and well-structured.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are covered, but with no annotations, no usage guidance, and no parameter semantics, the description is not complete enough for an agent to reliably select and invoke this tool among many siblings. It is a minimal viable description at best.

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 0%, and the description must compensate for three parameters. It offers only a vague hint ('for a service or topic') that relates to query/service, but it never explains max_results, the meaning of service, or query syntax. This is insufficient for 0% schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('AWS documentation') and indicates scope ('for a service or topic'). It is clearly distinct from execute/query tools, but it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_aws_knowledge or aws_query, so not a 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?

No guidance on when to choose search_docs over get_aws_knowledge, aws_query, or get_best_practices. No mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description simply states what it does, leaving the agent to infer selection.

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