search_docs

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral context. It discloses a permission requirement and restricts the search to 'documents you can access', which is useful access-control context. However, it does not describe return format, pagination, or whether the search covers document content vs. metadata, leaving behavioral details mostly implicit.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the permission requirement and clearly states the tool's purpose. Every word adds value; there is no redundancy or irrelevant detail.

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 tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema or annotations. The description covers the core purpose and permission scope but omits information about the return structure, limit/offset behavior, or any required parameters besides 'query'. Given the minimal context, this is adequate but not complete.

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 has only one required parameter, 'query', with no description (0% schema coverage). The tool description identifies a full-text search, which implies 'query' is the search term, but it does not explain query syntax, case sensitivity, or supported operators. Some meaning is added beyond the bare schema, but it is minimal.

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 uses a specific verb ('search') and resource ('documents'), clearly indicating this is a full-text search tool. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like read_doc by scoping to 'documents you can access' and emphasizing search across documents.

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 when to use it (when you need to find documents by content), and mentions a required permission ('docs.search'), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like read_doc for known document IDs. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided.

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