search_docs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'ranked matching pages' but does not disclose whether results include full content or snippets, how ranking works, or if any side effects exist (e.g., query logging). Important behavioral traits are omitted.

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 sentence, which is concise. However, it lacks structure to efficiently convey key details. Every word is necessary, but the brevity sacrifices completeness, making it less helpful despite being short.

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 2 parameters, no enums, and an output schema, the description should at least hint at expected input format and output structure. It only says 'ranked matching pages', leaving ambiguity about what the response contains. The output schema exists but is not referenced, so completeness is low.

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 0%. The description does not explain the parameters beyond the schema, such as valid query formats, limit behavior (e.g., max value), or default ranking criteria. With no supplemental info, the agent must rely solely on the schema, which is insufficient.

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 verb 'Search', the resource 'captured docs', and the outcome 'return ranked matching pages'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools: get_doc (single document), list_docs (list all), and refresh_docs (update cache).

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. It does not specify that this should be used for finding relevant content, while get_doc for specific IDs, list_docs for enumeration, and refresh_docs for cache updates. The description lacks context for decision-making.

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