search_docs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that results include field notes (even when filtering by apps_in_toss) and that it covers material beyond the official spec. It does not mention side effects or permissions, but the read-only nature is implied and no contradictions exist.

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: a succinct purpose statement, a valuable note about field notes, and a clean Args list. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and the structure is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (3 params, no annotations, and an output schema that likely explains return format), the description is complete: it specifies the search scope, parameter semantics, and cross-references list_sources. No critical gaps are apparent.

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 description explains all three parameters in detail: query (space-separated keywords), source (optional, check list_sources), and max_results (default 10, max 30). This is essential because the schema has no descriptions (0% coverage in the input schema), and the description fully compensates.

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 Toss developer docs and built-in supplemental materials, using a specific verb (search) and resource (docs). It also distinguishes itself by mentioning the inclusion of field notes not in official specs, which differentiates it from sibling search_examples and search_icons.

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 context on when to use it (searching docs, including field notes) and explicitly points to the list_sources tool for valid source values. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use it, but the guidance is clear and relevant.

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