search_docs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the return shape (heading, score, snippet), which matters since no output schema exists, plus the expected follow-up workflow and a behavioral instruction to quote the manual to the user.

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 and scope, then examples, return shape, and follow-up in descending priority. Four short lines with no filler; the CLI hint '(bpp-docs --search)' is a minor but useful anchor.

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 and no annotation coverage of return values, the description supplies the field names returned and the intended follow-up path, which is enough to call and use the tool correctly. Pagination or result-count limits are not addressed, a minor gap for a search tool.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load. It does so by showing the expected query style via examples ('migration prior', 'unphased diploid', 'species delimitation algorithm'), which tells the agent to pass natural-language concept phrases rather than single tokens.

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 ('Ranked full-text search of the BPP manual') and explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling lookup_docs (concept search vs. keyword lookup). An agent can distinguish it from every other sibling without opening a 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?

Gives both when to use it ('concepts rather than single keywords') with concrete example queries, and when to use the alternative ('Follow up with lookup_docs for a keyword'). The routing rule is explicit, not inferred.

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