search_docs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states the return format ('top-k chunks with file paths, headings, and similarity scores') and the semantic search nature. For a read-only search tool, this is sufficient, though it omits potential edge cases or permission requirements.

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 three short, information-dense sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds usage and output details efficiently.

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 the tool's purpose, typical usage, and return format, which is adequate for a straightforward search tool. It does not elaborate on parameter variations, but the schema provides the essential details, making the overall context reasonably 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 input schema has 0% description coverage, requiring the description to compensate. It only indirectly references top_k via 'top-k chunks' and does not explain the meaning or usage of mode, min_score, publication, or product_area, which are essential for correct invocation.

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 performs semantic search over documentation, specifying the exact scope. It also differentiates itself from the sibling search_code by targeting documentation rather than code, and by highlighting 'conceptual or how do I' queries.

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 phrase 'Best for conceptual or how do I queries' provides a clear usage context, guiding when to prefer this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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