search_csdk_docs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the TF-IDF search mechanism and that it returns documentation chunks, which is transparent about core behavior. However, it does not explicitly state side effects or safety (e.g., read-only), though this is implied for a search operation.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and each sentence adds value. The phrase 'Search ... using TF-IDF search' has slight redundancy, but it is minor and does not detract from overall conciseness.

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 adequately covers purpose, usage, and return type ('documentation chunks'). There is no output schema, but the description gives a reasonable expectation of what the tool returns. For a search tool with straightforward parameters, this is sufficient, though it could mention result structure in more detail.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, such as query examples or filtering options, but the schema descriptions are thorough enough.

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 Sisense Compose SDK documentation using TF-IDF search and returns relevant chunks. It uses a specific verb ('search') and resource ('documentation'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like browse_csdk_docs and list_csdk_topics by focusing on targeted search rather than browsing or listing.

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 provides usage context: 'Use this for specific questions where you need targeted results.' This implies the tool is ideal for focused queries but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, making it clear but not fully comprehensive.

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