search_docs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: results are ranked sections with only a snippet, not full content, and a second call is required to get the full section — which shapes how an agent should consume the output.

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 short sentences with zero filler, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by result shape and the natural next step. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists and all three parameters are documented, so the description need not explain return values; what it does explain is the snippet-to-full-section handoff. Minor gap: no mention of empty-result behavior or whether the query is keyword vs natural-language matching.

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 query, limit (1-25, default 5), and category path are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning about parameter interplay (e.g. how category narrows ranking or what happens when no sections match), so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ("Search Formidable Forms documentation") plus the granularity of results (ranked sections with snippet, heading, anchor, doc id). The final sentence distinguishes it from read_doc_section, so an agent can tell the search tool apart from the read/list siblings without opening any schema.

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 gives a clear two-step workflow: search here, then pass doc id + anchor to read_doc_section for full content. It does not explicitly say when to prefer list_docs / browse_docs_by_category / get_doc_structure over searching, so the alternative-selection guidance is implied rather than stated.

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