search_docs

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description bears the full behavioral burden, and it says nothing about ranking, fuzzy matching behavior, tag/subscription filtering, pagination, or result limits. The single useful behavioral hint is that the corpus is auto-generated task documentation, which is minimal for a 9-parameter tool.

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 text is a single short clause with no wasted words and is front-loaded, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. Nothing in it is unnecessary because almost nothing is there.

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 nine parameters, no annotations, and no sibling differentiation, the definition is far from complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. The existence of an output schema excuses explaining return values, but not the missing input and selection guidance.

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% across nine parameters, and the description compensates for none of them. Non-obvious controls such as fuzzy, fuzzyMaxEdits, fuzzyMaxCandidates, tags, and subscriptions are left entirely undefined, with no explanation of how they interact or when to set them.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Search Mechanic docs') and a parenthetical clarifying that the docs are generated task documentation, which is more than a tautology. However, it does not distinguish this from siblings like get_doc, search_tasks, or similar_tasks, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which search surface to pick.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternatives, despite four plausible sibling tools (get_doc, search_tasks, similar_tasks, get_task). The only implicit signal is the word 'Search', leaving selection entirely to inference.

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