Search documentation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds behavioral context by explaining that depth 'traverses cross-references' and enables discovery of related operators/functions, which goes beyond the schema's dry parameter description.

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 well-structured with a one-line summary and bullet-point use cases, front-loading the main purpose. It is moderately concise, though the final paragraph on depth is somewhat redundant with the earlier mention of 'See Also' expansion.

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?

The tool has no output schema, and the description does not describe what results look like (e.g., format, ordering, or how query/paths interact). It covers use cases well but omits behavior for common scenarios like supplying both query and paths or providing no parameters, which is a gap for a search tool.

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?

All five parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds value by explaining depth's role in 'See Also' expansion and search_type as a category filter, but doesn't elaborate on limit, paths, or query syntax beyond what the schema already provides.

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 'Search documentation by keyword or retrieve specific paths' with a specific verb and resource, and lists distinct use cases like finding operators/functions and discovering related docs via 'See Also' links. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like docs_read, which implies reading a specific document.

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 explicit 'Use this tool to' scenarios, covering keyword search, 'See Also' expansion, and category filtering. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools (e.g., docs_read for direct reading), so there's no exclusion guidance.

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