search_product_docs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the matching semantics (keywords split on whitespace/commas, line-level match, nearest preceding heading returned), which is non-obvious behavior. It does not cover rate limits, pagination, or what happens with multiple matches.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the terse phrasing packs matching mechanics and return behavior into one clause without structure, and the essential usage routing is absent entirely.

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?

An output schema exists, so return formatting need not be described, and annotations cover safety. But with four parameters at 0% schema coverage and no usage guidance, the definition is incomplete: the agent cannot tell how category or product_ids scope the search or when to prefer this over search_products.

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% across four parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It partially compensates by explaining that query is split on spaces/commas into keywords, but category, max_results (default 15, max 50) and product_ids receive no explanation at all, leaving three of four parameters semantically opaque.

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 states a concrete retrieval behavior: it finds lines in the detailed document containing keywords split on spaces/commas and returns the nearest preceding heading. That is a specific verb+resource, but it never distinguishes this from siblings like search_products or get_search_guide, leaving the 'docs vs products vs guide' boundary implicit.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of the sibling get_search_guide (which is plausibly the entry point for this search flow), and no exclusions. The agent must infer from the name alone whether this or search_products is the right tool.

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