search_documentation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states the basic action without mentioning any behavioral traits such as result ordering, pagination, or read-only safety. The limit parameter in the schema hints at result control, but the description itself adds no behavioral transparency.

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, efficient sentence with no extraneous words. It front-loads the core purpose immediately and does not waste tokens. This is exemplary conciseness for a tool definition.

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?

While the schema and output schema provide structured details, the description lacks guidance on usage context relative to the sibling tool. For a search tool with three parameters, the description could mention the difference between searching and reading, or indicate the scope of the search. As is, it is minimally adequate but not fully complete.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with detailed explanations for each parameter (e.g., query supports stemming, limit has default/max, section filters by service). Since the schema already provides thorough parameter semantics, the description adds no additional meaning, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's function: 'Search Azure documentation by keyword query.' It specifies a concrete verb (search) and resource (Azure documentation), making the purpose evident. However, it does not differentiate this tool from its sibling 'read_documentation,' so while it is not a tautology, it misses an opportunity to clarify the distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention the sibling 'read_documentation' or any conditions that would favor searching over direct reading. The schema offers details on parameters but no contextual usage direction.

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