search_docs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, yet the description still adds substantive behavior: scoped search over guide + API reference, passage returns with 3 lines of context either side, and a cap of 6 match blocks per document. That return-shape and truncation detail goes well beyond the annotation.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the usage trigger and alternative routing, and the illustrative query terms make the intent immediately legible. Nothing is redundant with the structured fields.

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 single-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, trigger, disambiguation, and the shape/limits of results. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents `query` ('term or phrase to find'). The description adds contextual examples ('keyed create', 'ifVersion') but no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 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 (searches) plus two concrete resources (the guide and the API reference), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling `guide` by refusing the 'fit verdict' job. An agent can route between search_docs and guide without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('when one question comes up mid-build... reading a full document would waste context') and an explicit exclusion ('Not the tool for the fit verdict... call `guide` for that'). Both when-to-use and when-not/alternative are present.

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