search_docs

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

Description discloses key behaviors: supports natural language queries, includes content option with limit of 5, and fuzzy matching default. Since annotations are absent, description carries full burden. It covers major behavioral traits without contradictions.

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?

Description is well-structured with Args, Returns, and Example sections. Every sentence is informative and necessary, no fluff. Front-loaded with purpose and then details.

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 that output schema exists, description's mention of 'slug, title, score, snippet, and URL' is sufficient. With 4 parameters and no annotations, description is complete. Lacks only explicit usage guidelines for sibling differentiation, but overall adequate.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage (no param descriptions in schema), but the tool description fully explains each parameter: query as 'Search query', limit as max results with default, include_content with behavior and max 5 constraint, fuzzy with prefix expansion and default. Adds significant meaning beyond schema structure.

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?

Description clearly states the tool searches 'Reflex documentation by keyword or natural language query', with specific verb 'search' and resource 'Reflex documentation'. Distinguishes itself from siblings like search_api_reference and search_components by focusing on general documentation.

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?

Provides examples and parameter descriptions, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like search_api_reference or search_components. No guidance on exclusions or alternatives beyond implied purpose.

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