search_agent_docs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. The verb 'search' implies a read-only operation, and the description says what it searches, but it does not disclose what the response looks like (snippets, ranked matches, full sections), result limits, or how matches are ordered. Adequate but minimal behavioral context beyond the verb itself.

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?

Two tight sentences, zero filler. The first sentence front-loads the action and resource, the second carries the usage trigger. Every word earns its place.

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 search tool with no output schema, this is nearly complete: it defines the domain, what to search for, and when to use it. The only gap is the response format, which an agent would benefit from knowing to set expectations, but the tool's simplicity keeps the omission minor.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds only marginal value by repeating the same topical scope (coding patterns, architecture, APIs) that the schema's query example already conveys. It does not add syntax, format, or query-construction guidance beyond the schema.

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 through agent documentation for specific information about coding patterns, architecture, APIs, or implementation details.' The scope is clearly defined and the action ('search') is distinguishable from the sibling 'read_agent_docs', but the description never explicitly names the sibling or states the boundary, so it misses full differentiation credit.

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: 'Use this when you need to find specific guidance before implementing a feature or fixing a bug.' This tells an agent when to invoke the tool but does not state when NOT to use it or mention read_agent_docs as the alternative for reading whole documents, so exclusion guidance is absent.

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