search_documentation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses stemming behavior, the limitation that only 'a2a' is indexed, the maximum limit of 50, and the return format. This is solid transparency, though it could explicitly state that it is a read-only operation, which is implied by '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?

The description is concise and well-structured: a one-sentence summary, then a clear 'Args' section, and a 'Returns' section. Every sentence adds value, and the information is front-loaded.

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 search tool with no annotations and a simple schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, all parameters, return format, and a key limitation (source only a2a). The presence of an output schema is noted, but the description still adequately describes the expected result fields.

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 description thoroughly explains each parameter beyond what the schema provides: query supports stemming, section has common values, source is currently only 'a2a', and limit has default/max. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 A2A protocol documentation by keyword, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling read_documentation by focusing on searching rather than reading, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 usage is implied: search when you need to find documentation by keyword. However, it does not explicitly compare with read_documentation or state when not to use this tool. The description offers context about sections and source, but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative guidance.

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