Search the docs

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and openWorldHint=false; the description adds genuinely new context by confirming it 'works offline' and by specifying the return shape (Markdown sections with URLs). It stops short of noting result caps, ranking behavior, or doc staleness, which would be the remaining useful disclosures.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with verb and corpus, followed by return format and the offline property. The long parenthetical topic list earns its space because it doubles as query vocabulary an agent can mine for keyword selection.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly supplies the return shape and the offline behavior, which is enough to call the tool safely. Minor gaps remain around how many results are meaningful, query phrasing tips, and whether offline docs can be stale.

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 coverage is 50%: limit is documented (default 4, max 10) but the required 'query' parameter has no description at all. The description implies query is a topic/keyword string via the coverage list but adds no syntax, phrasing, or ranking guidance, so it does not compensate for the gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search the Strait documentation') and enumerates the topical coverage so an agent knows exactly what corpus is searched. Return format ('closest-matching sections as Markdown with their URLs') is stated up front, and the resource (docs) is clearly distinct from sibling search_links.

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 coverage list plus the 'works offline' note give a clear context for when to reach for this tool (documentation/how-to questions rather than workspace data). It does not explicitly name an exclusion such as 'for link data, use search_links or list_links', so routing between search_docs and search_links is left to inference.

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