Doco Search

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description goes beyond by disclosing that body hits return a stable block_id and summary, and explicitly frames the tool as a locating step rather than a mutating action. This is valuable behavioral context without contradicting the 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 a single well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and then provides the most useful operational detail: stable block_id for follow-up block API calls. Every clause earns its place with no fluff or repetition of annotation 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?

Given the output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values in depth. It covers the essential search behavior, the useful block_id outcome, and the intended follow-up workflow. It is complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly, though it could mention when to prefer doco_search_v2.

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%, so the schema already explains q, limit, locale, and knowledge_base_id. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond restating that search covers title and body, which is also embedded in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the description does not need to compensate for schema gaps.

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 a specific verb and resource: full-text search across documents by title and body. It also adds what result shape matters (stable block_id and summary), which helps distinguish it from generic list/read tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the closely named sibling doco_search_v2.

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 gives a clear usage context: use this to locate documents first, then call block APIs for precise read or modification. This implies the intended search-to-locate workflow. It does not mention when to prefer doco_search_v2 or any exclusion criteria, so it is not a full routing guide.

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