search_docs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the indexing scope (entire site), that results are ranked, and the return format. It does not mention rate limits or auth, but for a search tool these are less critical. The transparency is good.

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 concise and well-structured. It starts with a one-sentence summary, then details indexed content, use cases, and parameter descriptions. Every sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 complexity (search with two parameters), the description adequately covers indexing scope, parameters, return format, and use cases. An output schema exists (as per context signals) and is described in text, making the documentation complete for an agent to use effectively.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must add meaning. It does: for 'query', it provides example queries; for 'k', it explains 'Maximum number of results to return (default: 5)'. This adds value beyond the schema, though no parameter-level details about expected formats.

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 tool searches F5 AI Security documentation and returns ranked results. It specifies the indexed content (entire docs site, including specific sections). This distinguishes it from the sibling 'fetch_doc', which likely retrieves a single document.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to find relevant F5 AI Security documentation for any question about...' and lists example topics. While it doesn't explicitly say when not to use, the context of sibling tool 'fetch_doc' implies this is for searching, not retrieving. Clear usage guidance is provided.

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