search_docs

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

The description states that the tool performs 'keyword matching' and is 'semantic search ready', which hints at behavior but remains vague. No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose limitations, side effects, or performance characteristics. The return description of 'List of matching documents with relevance scores' adds some transparency but is insufficient for a 4.

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 concise, starting with a clear one-line purpose followed by a structured parameter list and return description. It avoids redundancy with schema defaults (defaults are already in schema). The structure is well-organized, though the parameter explanations could be slightly more concise for a 5.

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 has 4 parameters, no annotations, and no explicit output schema, the description covers the basic mechanics but lacks contextual completeness. It omits information about pagination, performance, or when to use this tool versus siblings. The return description is prose, which is acceptable. The description is adequate but leaves gaps for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides a clear bullet list explaining each parameter: 'query: Search query string', 'max_results: Maximum number of results to return', 'search_content: Whether to search in document content', 'search_titles: Whether to search in document titles'. This adds meaning beyond the schema's empty descriptions, fulfilling the dimension fully.

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's purpose: 'Search documentation using keyword matching (semantic search ready)'. It uses a specific verb 'search' and clearly identifies the resource 'documentation'. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings, the unique verb and the mention of 'keyword matching' set it apart from 'analyze', 'ask', 'index', and 'list'.

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. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or when not to use it. Given sibling tools like 'ask_docs' or 'analyze_docs', explicit usage context would be valuable, but it is entirely absent.

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