search_docs

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses almost nothing: no note that it is a read-only operation, no mention of ranking behavior, no mention that a shared secret may be required. The authentication nuance for access_token lives only in the schema, not the description.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, appropriate for a four-parameter search tool. Its brevity is efficient, though it edges toward under-specification rather than tightness.

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 explained, and the schema fully documents the parameters. However, for a tool with zero annotation coverage the description should still convey that this is a safe read and how it relates to get_doc, which it does not.

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 100%, so every parameter including the product enum values and the token conditions is already documented in the schema. The description adds only the word 'keyword', which hints at title/body matching already spelled out in the query field description. Baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb (search) and resource (Northline help-center articles) plus the matching mode (by keyword), which distinguishes it from get_doc, which fetches a single article. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling or the ticket tools, so the differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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 guidance on when to pick this over get_doc (keyword discovery vs. known-document retrieval) or over the ticket tools for support questions. The agent must infer the choice from the tool names alone.

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