Search Documentation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool 'returns a list of matching topics with relevance scores,' which gives some output context, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a search tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 highly concise and well-structured: two sentences that efficiently cover the action and output. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and output but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and deeper parameter meaning. Without an output schema, it doesn't fully explain return values beyond mentioning 'relevance scores,' leaving gaps in completeness.

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 description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain search syntax or relevance scoring). According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even without param info in the description.

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 tool's purpose: 'Search documentation topics using full-text search.' It specifies the verb ('search') and resource ('documentation topics'), and mentions the return type ('list of matching topics with relevance scores'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'describe_docs' or 'get_related_topics' beyond the search functionality.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'describe_docs' or 'get_related_topics'. It states what the tool does but offers no context about when it's appropriate, such as for finding topics by keyword versus browsing sections. This leaves the agent without explicit usage direction.

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