search_docs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the result format (breadcrumb, excerpt, canonical doc URL) and the version fallback behavior. It implies read-only operation but does not explicitly state safety, rate limits, or other behavioral traits beyond what is already in the schema.

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 well-structured: a clear purpose statement, a usage directive, and a concise parameter breakdown. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the structure is front-loaded with the key information.

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 covers all essential aspects: purpose, when to use, parameter semantics, and the result format. It even explains the version default behavior. For a search tool with no output schema, this is a complete and self-sufficient description.

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 zero descriptions, but the description fully compensates with an 'Args' section that explains each parameter: query (with natural language examples), version (format and default to installed cudaq version), and limit (maximum results, default 5). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Search') and identifies the resource ('NVIDIA CUDA-Q documentation') and what it returns ('ranked excerpts'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_page and find_api, which focus on page retrieval and API lookup respectively.

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 explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'Use this before answering any CUDA-Q question from memory', with a rationale about the platform moving quickly. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the primary use case is clearly communicated.

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