search_utcp_docs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only indicates a read operation returning excerpts, but lacks details such as search algorithm (keyword vs semantic), pagination, rate limits, or any side effects. This minimal transparency leaves the agent with incomplete understanding.

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 extremely concise with only two sentences, both front-loaded with the core purpose. Every part is essential and there is no verbose or redundant content.

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 that the schema thoroughly describes all parameters and the tool has no output schema, the description adequately covers basic intent. However, it lacks contextual details like return format structure, error handling, or behavior when no results match, leaving some gaps for a complete understanding.

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 input schema already has 100% coverage with descriptive parameter descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The description does not compensate for any missing schema details.

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 verb ('Search'), resource ('UTCP documentation'), and output ('relevant documentation sections with excerpts'). It is specific and effectively communicates what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'semantic_search_docs', which might have similar functionality.

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, nor does it mention when not to use it. The agent must infer usage from the name and basic purpose, which is insufficient for optimal tool selection.

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