search_docs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool searches documentation but doesn't describe how results are returned (format, ranking, pagination), whether there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens with empty results. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence that immediately conveys the core functionality. There's zero wasted language or redundancy, and it's perfectly front-loaded with the essential information.

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?

For a search tool with 2 parameters and 100% schema coverage but no annotations or output schema, the description provides basic purpose but lacks critical behavioral context. It doesn't explain what the search returns (format, structure, limitations) or how to interpret results, leaving the agent with incomplete understanding despite good parameter documentation.

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 the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any additional semantic context about the 'query' parameter (like search syntax or operators) or the 'paths' parameter (what constitutes valid paths). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Search') and target resource ('Pocket Network documentation'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from most sibling tools that focus on blockchain operations rather than documentation search. However, it doesn't specify what type of documentation or format is returned.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_doc_page' (which appears to fetch specific documentation pages) or other search-related tools. There's no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or comparison with similar functionality in the sibling tool list.

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