search_docs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does contribute the useful fact that the operation is 'read-only'. However, it does not describe what results look like, whether top_k limits results, or any other runtime behavior, so transparency is only partial.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core purpose and read-only nature are stated efficiently. It is somewhat under-specified, but concisely structured.

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 and no annotations, the minimal description leaves several things an agent would need to know unstated: what results are returned, how top_k affects the search, and when to choose this tool over run_sql/list_tables. This is incomplete for a tool with two parameters and no structured schema support.

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%, and the description does not explain the query parameter or the top_k parameter beyond the names in the schema. 'query' is mildly self-explanatory, but 'top_k' and its default behavior are not addressed, so the description fails to compensate for the missing schema docs.

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 a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('documentation corpus'), and adds the safety qualifier 'read-only'. It distinguishes from the sibling tools run_sql and list_tables by the object being searched, though it does not explicitly name them or contrast their purposes.

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 gives no guidance on when to use search_docs versus run_sql or list_tables, and it does not mention any exclusions or context. While 'documentation corpus' implies a docs search scenario, no explicit alternative or condition is provided, which is effectively no guidance.

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