search_docs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does add useful details: fuzzy matching, ranking, and snippet-style results. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether external calls are made, or any limitations such as index freshness, which would be more important for a non-obvious 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 two concise sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the result format is mentioned in the second sentence, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 well-documented parameters, the description covers the essential invocation requirements and return style. There is no output schema, so the mention of 'ranked results with snippets' helps fill that gap, though explicit guidance about when to use it over siblings is missing.

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?

The schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions fuzzy matching, which loosely maps to the fuzzy parameter, but it does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already documents.

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 a specific action ('search'), a specific resource ('Anthropic Claude and Google Gemini documentation'), and adds distinctive behavior ('fuzzy matching', 'ranked results with snippets'). This sufficiently distinguishes it from sibling tools like fetch_page and list_sections.

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 usage context is implied by the verb 'search' and the presence of sibling tools, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. An agent must infer that search_docs is the right choice for finding information rather than fetching or listing.

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