search_docs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the search scope, ranked results, and result contents (type, id, snippet). It doesn't explicitly state read-only behavior, but the description makes it clear this is a search operation returning matches, which is sufficient for a safe tool.

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?

Three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: core action, workflow, and scope/result detail. No fluff, tightly written, and front-loaded with the key action.

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?

The description fully equips the agent to use the tool: it explains the result format (type, id, snippet) even without an output schema, and ties into sibling tools for the next step. Coupled with fully described parameters, it is complete 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining what the 'area' parameter maps to (REST endpoints, webhooks, guide sections, schemas), giving the agent a richer understanding of enumeration values. This elevates it above baseline.

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 the entire Pancake API documentation and returns ranked matches, with explicit scope (REST endpoints, webhooks, guides, schemas). It distinguishes itself from sibling get_* and list_* tools by positioning itself as the entry point for discovery.

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?

Provides explicit workflow: 'search first, then fetch full detail with get_endpoint, get_webhook, or get_guide using the returned id.' This gives clear contextual guidance but does not explicitly state exclusions or when not to use the tool (e.g., 'use list_endpoints to browse all endpoints instead'), so it falls short of a 5.

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