search_documentation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses full-text search with stemming, optional section filtering, default and maximum limit, and the return format with fields. This provides sufficient behavioral context for an agent.

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 very concise: a single line for purpose, then parameter descriptions in a clear format. No wasted sentences; every line adds value. The structure is easy to parse.

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?

Given the complexity (3 parameters, output schema present), the description covers all necessary aspects: input parameters with examples, output format, and behavioral details like stemming and default limits. It is complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful details: for 'query' it explains stemming, for 'section' it lists common values, for 'limit' it gives default and maximum. This fully compensates for missing schema descriptions.

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 it searches Apache Spark documentation by keyword query. It specifies the resource (Apache Spark documentation) and verb (search), and the sibling tool 'read_documentation' suggests a complementary action, distinguishing this tool as the search interface.

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 explains the tool's purpose but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'read_documentation'. It implies usage for searching documentation, but lacks guidance on when not to use it or when to prefer the sibling tool.

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