search-doc

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that iterative multi-call refinement is expected, but says nothing about result format, ranking, pagination, or what limit does behaviorally beyond the schema default. Some behavioral context is added, but a no-annotation tool should say more.

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?

Three short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the operational tips following. Nothing is padded, though the prerequisite guidance could be tightened to make the tool's own scope clearer.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover behavior on its own. It covers prerequisites and iteration adequately but omits return shape and result-size behavior, leaving a real gap for an agent deciding how to consume or paginate results.

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 all four parameters (including the keyword/sql enum and category values) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or example guidance beyond that, so the baseline 3 for schema-driven parameters is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (Search) and a specific resource (the FeathersJS documentation), so an agent immediately knows this is a retrieval tool over docs. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like search-community or get-doc, relying on the resource noun alone to do that work.

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?

It gives a useful prerequisite chain (call get-schema and get-menu first) and notes that repeated calls are expected to refine results. However, it never states when to prefer this over the sibling get-doc (exact retrieval) or search-community, and gives no exclusions, so the routing guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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