pin.search_docs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the key behavioral context that results are 'documentation candidates (not claims)' — i.e., they are unverified and require subsequent prove/verify steps. This goes beyond the annotations and informs the agent about result reliability.

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 concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately adds a critical usage constraint. Every sentence earns its place.

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 there is no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns. It says 'documentation candidates' but does not specify the result format, pagination, or how to interpret results. The repository parameter is also unexplained. Overall, the description is useful but incomplete for a search tool with no output schema.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not explain 'query' or 'repository' at all. While 'query' is self-explanatory, 'repository' is ambiguous (repository name? path? filter scope?) and the description adds no clarification.

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: 'Find documentation candidates (not claims).' This uses a specific verb and resource, and the parenthetical distinguishes it from claim-verification tools like pin.prove and pin.verify. It also differentiates from pin.search_code by focusing on documentation.

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 clear workflow guidance: 'Before any factual assertion call pin.prove or pin.prove_set, then pin.verify.' This tells when to use this tool in a larger pipeline. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like pin.search_code or state when not to use this tool, 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.