search_documentation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the search is read-only, whether it returns snippets or full documents, how top_k affects results, or any rate limits. The description is too thin to inform an agent about the tool's behavior beyond the basic search action.

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, short sentence that is front-loaded with the key action and resource. It is appropriately concise, though it could add a bit more context without becoming verbose.

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 tool has an output schema, the return format is covered, but the description lacks guidance on query formulation, top_k behavior, and the scope of the runbooks. With no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description is not complete enough for an agent to use the tool effectively in all cases.

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 for the schema's lack of parameter documentation. The description only mentions 'search' and 'runbooks' but does not explain what the query parameter should contain, how top_k influences results, or any constraints. The schema provides only names and types, leaving the agent to guess at semantics.

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 specific verb ('Search') and a clear resource ('synthetic data engineering runbooks'), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_job_status or validate_sql. It is concise and unambiguous, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 usage: use this tool to search runbooks. It does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like search_incidents or analyze_job_failure, but the resource type ('runbooks') provides enough context for an agent to infer the appropriate use case.

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