Docs Searcher

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the search action and does not mention return format, pagination, case sensitivity, error behavior, or any other behavioral trait, leaving the agent without critical context for using the tool safely.

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 short sentence, so it is concise and front-loaded. However, it is so terse that it borders on under-specification, merely paraphrasing the title without adding meaningful information. It is appropriately short but lacks substance.

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 tool with only one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should at least hint at what the search returns or how results are presented. It does not, leaving the agent without essential context about the tool's behavior and output, making the description incomplete for a truly usable 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?

Schema coverage is 100% (the only parameter 'query' has a description), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds minimal semantic value by tying 'query' to 'query text', but it does not clarify format, required length, or any constraints 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 uses a clear verb 'Search' and specifies the resource 'the docs', which conveys the tool's primary function. However, 'docs' is somewhat ambiguous (documentation vs. documents), and there are no sibling tools to differentiate from, so it doesn't fully distinguish itself from potential alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of limitations or edge cases. The description only states what it does, not when it should be invoked, making it no more helpful than the name itself.

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