search_docs

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool returns docs ('ground every claim in a returned doc'), but does not elaborate on return format, pagination, or any side effects. It gives moderate context but not rich detail about behavior beyond the basic search action.

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 with zero filler. The action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second provides immediate usage guidance. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and usage. It implies the return of docs, which is sufficient for an agent to know what to expect. A minor gap is lack of detail on how many results or how to interpret them, but this does not hinder correct invocation for typical use.

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 schema already documents the single 'query' parameter as 'Search keywords' with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter's format, syntax, or expected input beyond what the schema provides, so it sits at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action: 'Search the product documentation' with a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from all sibling tools (customer lookup, category setting, replies, escalation, tickets), and the added context about grounding claims in returned docs further clarifies its unique purpose.

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 gives an explicit trigger: 'Call this before answering any product or policy question.' This is a clear when-to-use instruction. It doesn't mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context strongly implies that this is the go-to for documentation queries, making the usage intent unambiguous.

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