Search through Self protocol documentation

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds that it searches 'across all documentation files' and returns 'relevant information,' which gives some context about scope and output. However, it doesn't detail behavioral aspects like search algorithm, ranking, or performance characteristics that aren't covered by annotations.

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 concise with two short sentences that directly state the tool's function. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary details. However, the second sentence slightly repeats the first without adding significant new information, preventing a perfect score.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (search function), 100% schema coverage, readOnlyHint annotation, and presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the basic purpose and scope. A higher score would require addressing usage guidelines or more behavioral context, but it's adequate for this context.

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 clear descriptions for both parameters ('query' and 'max_results'). The description mentions 'specific terms' and 'relevant information,' which loosely relates to the query parameter, but adds minimal semantic value beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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's purpose as 'search through Self protocol documentation for specific terms' and specifies it searches 'across all documentation files.' This provides a specific verb ('search') and resource ('Self protocol documentation'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'fetch_self_docs' or 'list_docs_topics' beyond the search functionality.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'fetch_self_docs' (which might retrieve specific documents) or 'list_docs_topics' (which might list topics without searching), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions for using this search tool.

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