search_documentation

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden. It implies a read-only search operation and hints at index availability, but does not explicitly state side effects, failure modes, or return behavior. The prerequisite helps but lacks full transparency.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every word earns its place. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 simple search tool, the description covers purpose and a prerequisite, but lacks return format and behavior when no index is present. Given no output schema or annotations, more detail would be expected, but it is not entirely inadequate.

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 coverage is only 50% (query described, limit not). The description does not add any parameter information beyond the schema. The 'limit' parameter remains unexplained, and the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Search the locally crawled documentation index.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like crawl_documentation and get_documentation_page by specifying the resource (index) and the action (search).

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 a clear prerequisite: 'Crawl first if no index is available,' indicating when to use the crawler alternative. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use get_documentation_page or crawler_status, so it is not fully comprehensive.

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