search_docs

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the search-and-return behavior (returning matches with snippets) but does not mention permissions, rate limits, or side effects. It's adequate for a search tool but leaves notable gaps in behavioral disclosure.

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?

Two tightly written sentences: the first states the purpose and output, the second gives the usage directive. Every word earns its place, and the key 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 straightforward 3-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies enough context for correct usage, including a strong usage hint. It omits details like pagination or error handling, but these are minor 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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage with rich descriptions (e.g., query examples, category enum explanations, limit bounds). The description adds little beyond restating the scope, so it meets the baseline for high schema 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 a specific verb ('Search'), a distinct resource ('PayRetailers Guides and Skills'), and the output format ('top matches with a short snippet'). This effectively differentiates it from sibling tools that fetch specific data (e.g., get_endpoint_spec, get_country_rules).

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 an explicit 'when to use' directive: 'Use this before answering any integration question to ground your response in the official documentation.' This clearly signals the primary use case, but it lacks explicit mention of alternatives or when not to use the tool, so it doesn't reach a 5.

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