search_documentation

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only mentions breadcrumbs in results, but omits important details like pagination, ordering, error handling, or what happens with empty queries. The full-text search mechanism is also not explained.

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?

Two sentences with no unnecessary words. Front-loads the action ('Search documentation') and immediately states key output ('hierarchical context'). Efficient and scannable.

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?

For a simple search tool with three well-documented parameters, the description covers the basic purpose and output structure. However, the absence of an output schema and lack of details on result ordering or pagination leave some gaps, especially given the lack of annotations.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides. It mentions 'full-text search' generically but does not elaborate on how the query or category parameters are used.

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 performs full-text search on documentation and returns results with breadcrumbs. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_document (specific document retrieval), search_by_tags (tag-based search), and get_table_of_contents (structure).

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., search_by_tags, get_document). It only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer appropriate use cases without explicit comparisons or exclusions.

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