search_docs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It discloses the dependency on DOCU_RAG_URL and the disabled error behavior, as well as the response shape (synthesised answer plus chunks). This goes beyond the schema, though it could specify rate limits or auth, but for a search tool this is sufficient.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then quickly covers return value and configuration. No wasted words.

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's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers purpose, return value, environment dependency, and error condition. It doesn't mention pagination but topK bounds are in the schema. Overall complete for a search tool.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both query and topK clearly. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides; it only references 'top matching chunks' which aligns with topK. Baseline 3 applies.

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 'Full-text search over FinPay architecture documentation' with a specific verb and resource, and outlines the return type (synthesised answer plus top chunks). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that target specific resources like transactions or services.

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 for querying architecture documentation but does not explicitly compare to alternatives. It mentions the DOCU_RAG_URL prerequisite, which is useful operational context, but lacks guidance on when to prefer this tool over sibling resource-specific tools.

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