search_docs

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is clear. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond this—it does not mention result format, search behavior, or potential nuances like language or matching rules. Thus, it adds no value beyond the structured annotations.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and directly conveys the core function. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool, though this brevity trades off against completeness.

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?

With no output schema and only two parameters, the description is still too minimal. It does not explain what results to expect, how the search interacts with other doc tools, or what kind of queries are effective. Given the rich set of sibling tools, the description should provide more context to help the agent choose and use it correctly.

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%: the 'query' parameter is described as 'Search query: method, path, keyword' and 'limit' as 'Maximum results'. The tool description itself provides no additional parameter detail, so it relies fully on the schema, which is adequate. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Поиск по документации API' (Search API documentation) clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb (search) and resource (API documentation). It is distinct from sibling tools like search_stop_list, which search a different resource. However, it lacks detail on what aspect of the documentation is searched (e.g., endpoints, parameters, usage examples), making it slightly less specific than ideal.

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 such as list_endpoints or get_overview. It does not mention any prerequisites, limitations, or specific scenarios, leaving the agent without explicit usage context.

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