search_doc

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the basic behavior (searching and returning entries with paths and types) but lacks details on traits like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or pagination. For a search tool with no annotations, this is a moderate gap, as it covers core functionality but misses operational context.

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 purpose and followed by the outcome. Every sentence earns its place by conveying essential information without waste, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 moderate complexity (search with 2 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is complete enough for basic use but lacks depth. It explains what the tool does and returns, but without annotations or output schema, it misses details on behavioral traits and exact return format, making it adequate but with clear gaps.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('doc_slug' and 'query') with descriptions. The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or usage notes for parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 specific action ('Search within a specific documentation set'), the resource ('documentation set'), and the outcome ('Returns matching entries with their paths and types'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'search_all_docs' by specifying 'within a specific documentation set' and from 'get_doc_content'/'get_doc_index' by focusing on search rather than retrieval or listing.

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 implies usage context by specifying 'within a specific documentation set,' which suggests this tool is for targeted searches, unlike 'search_all_docs' that might search across all docs. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives or any exclusions, such as prerequisites or limitations, leaving some guidance implicit rather than explicit.

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