Search Documentation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds behavioral details such as BM25 ranking for relevance and the return structure (list of results with fields), going beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions.

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 well-structured with a clear opening statement, usage guidance, and a formatted Args/Returns section. It is reasonably concise, though the Args section duplicates schema descriptions to some extent, making it slightly longer than necessary.

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 description covers purpose, usage context, ranking algorithm, parameter details, and return fields, making it sufficiently complete for a search tool. It could mention edge cases (e.g., behavior when no results) but given the output schema exists and annotations are strong, it is adequately 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the description essentially repeats the parameter details (query, limit, source) without adding new meaning. Baseline for high coverage is 3; description does not enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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 searches documentation and returns relevant passages with source URLs, distinguishing it from siblings like get_doc and get_doc_excerpt by focusing on general search rather than retrieving specific content. It uses a specific verb ('search') and resource ('documentation').

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool ('when you need to find information about specific topics, APIs, or concepts'), but does not mention exclusions or alternatives. Clear context but no explicit when-not or alternative comparisons.

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