search_documentation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by specifying the search scope ('through the documentation repository'), result formatting ('titles, URLs, and excerpts'), and default/max values for max_results, which are behavioral details not captured in annotations.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized: it starts with a clear purpose statement, follows with usage context in a bulleted list, and ends with parameter and return details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and information is front-loaded for quick understanding.

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 (2 parameters, read-only operation), the description is complete: it covers purpose, usage examples, parameter semantics, and return format. With annotations providing safety hints and an output schema presumably detailing the formatted results, no additional information is needed for effective agent use.

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 schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description compensates by explaining query ('search term or phrase to look for') and max_results ('Maximum number of results to return') with default and max values. However, it doesn't detail query syntax (e.g., wildcards, phrases) or result ordering, leaving some semantic gaps.

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 specific action ('search'), resource ('UAB Research Computing documentation'), and scope ('for relevant content'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_documentation_page (retrieve specific page) and list_documentation_sections (list sections) by emphasizing search functionality across the entire repository.

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 clear context about when to use this tool ('Useful for finding information about...') with specific examples like Cheaha HPC cluster usage and research computing policies. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among sibling tools (e.g., when to use get_documentation_page instead).

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