search_official_docs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the return shape (passages plus source URLs), but says nothing about read-only status, authentication needs, rate limits, coverage of upstream sources, or behavior when no results match.

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 core statement of what the tool does is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a compact Args block. Every line carries information; only minor polish is missing.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential semantics of both inputs and hints at the return format. It falls short on freshness, source coverage, and failure behavior, which an agent cannot infer elsewhere.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains that query should be a focused technical question or keywords in English, and that max_results ranges from 1-10 with a default of 5. Both parameters gain meaning beyond the bare JSON schema.

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?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (official upstream documentation) and says what comes back (passages with source URLs). There are no sibling tools to distinguish from, so the only missing element of a 5 is sibling differentiation.

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 implies a search is for technical questions in English, but never says when to use this tool versus other retrieval tools, nor any preconditions or exclusions. No when/when-not guidance is present.

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