search_docs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the search operates over page content and returns matching sections, implying a read-only, non-destructive operation, but says nothing about result limits, ordering, or whether the search is fuzzy or exact.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, with no filler. Slight redundancy between 'for specific topics or methods' and 'searches page content for matching sections' costs it the top mark.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers both parameters and the retrieval unit. It remains incomplete only in tool-selection context relative to its four siblings, which would be the last missing piece.

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%, so the description is the only source of meaning. It clarifies module_name as an optional single-module scoping filter, which the schema's bare anyOf string/null does not convey, but adds nothing about query syntax, matching semantics, or the default null behavior.

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 and resource (search D3.js documentation) plus the unit of retrieval (matching sections), which is more than a tautology. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling find_module or get_docs, so an agent must infer the boundary from names alone.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no sibling is named as an alternative. The only conditional ('optionally restrict to a single module') is a parameter note, not routing guidance, so the agent must guess whether to reach for search_docs versus get_docs or find_example.

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