docs_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses query matching behavior (AND by default, FTS5 operators pass through) and an important boundary that the index is allowlist-only and private tracker/strategy/author files are NEVER indexed. It does not mention auth needs, rate limits, or result ordering beyond top-k, which are minor for a read-only search.

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?

Purpose and usage guidance are front-loaded, followed by a well-delimited query-syntax section and a bulleted set of canonical queries. It is on the long side, but each block (syntax rules, allowlist note, workflow routing) adds distinct value rather than restating the schema.

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?

For a two-parameter, no-output-schema search tool, the description covers purpose, invocation triggers, syntax, and index scope thoroughly. The only meaningful omission is the shape/nature of returned results, which an agent would benefit from since no output schema exists.

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 goes beyond the schema by documenting FTS5 operators (OR, NEAR, *, parens) and the exact-match quoting behavior for the query parameter. The k parameter is left entirely to the schema, so it does not lift this to a 5.

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 ('Top-k full-text search over the lrvx documentation') and enumerates the covered content types (guides, reference, tutorials, error codes, bindings, explanations). The purpose is unmistakable, but it never explicitly differentiates itself from overlapping siblings such as lookup_error_code, lrvx_venue_guide, or get_example, leaving that routing to inference.

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?

Gives concrete usage triggers — 'call it whenever the user asks how do I X / what does Y do / where is Z documented' — plus a set of canonical workflow queries that map user intents to specific searches. It is strong on when-to-use but offers no guidance on when NOT to use it in favor of the specialized lookup siblings.

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