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 states the read-only search behavior and return format (file paths with excerpts), but does not disclose potential limitations such as case sensitivity, result limits, or pagination. The description is adequate but not rich in behavioral detail.

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 one sentence of 14 words, front-loaded with the active verb 'Searches'. Every word contributes to the core purpose and output, with no extraneous 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?

For a simple search tool with an output schema, the description covers the primary purpose and return format. However, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral context, and the existence of sibling doc-retrieval tools suggests that clarification on when to use search_docs versus alternatives would improve completeness.

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 parameter 'keyword' is only referenced as 'a keyword', which is nearly redundant with the schema property name. With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds minimal meaning beyond the type and minLength, failing to specify search semantics like exact match, case sensitivity, or which fields are searched.

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 the specific verb 'Searches' and identifies the resource as 'Material Web documentation', with a clear output of 'matching file paths with excerpts'. This distinctively sets it apart from siblings like get_component_doc which likely retrieves a single specific document.

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 implies use for keyword-based search but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_component_doc or get_theming_docs. No exclusions or alternative tool references are mentioned.

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