docs_search

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint) and reach (openWorldHint), and the description adds substantive behavior beyond them: matching is done on page paths, with titles/text only for pages already read or indexed, and the return value is URLs rather than content. That indexing caveat is exactly the kind of non-obvious trait that prevents a wrong invocation. It doesn't mention ranking or empty-result behavior, keeping it below a 5.

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: the first establishes the corpus and coverage, the second establishes matching behavior and the handoff to `docs_read`. No filler, and the most decision-relevant information (where it searches and that it returns URLs) is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so (URLs). Combined with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety and open-world scope, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and chain it into `docs_read`.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning about what `query` is matched against (paths plus, conditionally, titles and text), which is not in the schema. The `section` restriction is only indirectly hinted at via the enumerated content areas, and `limit` is left entirely to 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 the official Effect House documentation at effecthouse.tiktok.com/learn") and enumerates the covered content areas, so an agent knows exactly what corpus is being searched. It also differentiates itself from the sibling `docs_read` by explaining that results are URLs to be passed onward.

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 makes the search→read workflow explicit ("Returns URLs to pass to `docs_read`"), which tells an agent exactly how this tool fits with its nearest sibling. It stops short of stating exclusions, e.g. that it cannot fetch page bodies or that offline/non-doc queries won't work, so it is not a full when/when-not statement.

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