Full-text search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses the output ('ranked page-level matches with a snippet') and the optional restriction, which is meaningful for a search tool. It does not mention quirks like result limits or error handling, but those are adequately covered by 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every detail earns its place. It avoids redundancy and clearly conveys the essential behavior without unnecessary fluff.

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 simple search tool with a rich input schema, the description explains the return format sufficiently, especially given no output schema. It could mention default max_results or pagination behavior, but the schema already provides max_results details, making this adequately 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of doc_id adds no new meaning beyond the schema's 'Restrict search to this document'; it offers no additional semantic insight for query or max_results.

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 identifies the tool with a specific verb ('Search'), a precise resource ('ingested UNIX documentation'), and output details ('ranked page-level matches with a snippet'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_manpages and search_source by focusing on documents and the optional doc_id restriction.

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?

It provides clear context that this is for searching ingested UNIX documentation, and the optional doc_id clarifies a specific use case. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like search_manpages or search_source, so guidance is clear but lacks explicit exclusion.

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