search_documentation

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 reveals matching methods (keyword, heading, fuzzy), which gives some behavioral insight. However, it does not disclose read-only nature, performance characteristics, or any side effects.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and key matching capabilities. It is well-structured but could include a bit more context without becoming verbose.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is somewhat minimal. It explains the search scope and matching types but lacks details on result format, pagination, or error handling. It is adequate but leaves 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?

The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the input schema already provides. With 67% schema coverage, parameters like limit and sdkVersion are partially documented in the schema, but the description does not elaborate on their role or format.

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 searches a specific documentation set (agent-skills-vrc-udon) and mentions three matching methods (keyword, heading, fuzzy). This is distinctive from sibling tools like search_reference or search_best_practice, which focus on narrower content.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling search tools (e.g., search_reference, search_examples), the description does not explain when to prefer this general search over more specific ones, nor does it mention any exclusions.

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