search_enterprise_docs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it says nothing about read-only semantics, result ranking, pagination, or scope limits. 'Search' implies a non-destructive read, but no explicit trait beyond that is disclosed.

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?

A single short sentence with zero filler, and the scope (handbooks and runbooks) is front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity partly reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and complexity is low with one required parameter. However, with no annotations and no query guidance, the definition leaves an agent unable to judge result behavior or query formulation for a search tool.

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% for the single required 'query' parameter, and the description adds no syntax, format, or matching guidance. The only implicit meaning is that the query targets handbook/runbook content, which barely compensates for the coverage gap.

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 states a clear verb and resource ('Search enterprise handbooks and runbooks'), which tells the agent exactly what content this tool queries. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling search_enterprise_policy by naming a different document set, though it never calls out that sibling explicitly.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to or away from alternatives. The agent must infer from the document types alone whether handbooks/runbooks or policies are the right target for a given query.

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