search_docs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the scope of the search but does not disclose behavior such as whether results are ranked, paginated, or limited. This is acceptable for a simple read-only search tool but not especially rich.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It names the action and the full resource scope efficiently, and every word contributes to understanding the tool.

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?

For a low-complexity tool with one required parameter and safe-read annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It does not explain the return format, but with no output schema and a simple search tool this is a minor gap; the main missing piece is any clarification relative to search_knowledge_base.

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 query parameter is already documented as 'Keyword or phrase to search for'. The description does not add extra parameter-level guidance, but it does not need to given the high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific action ('Full-text search') and clearly identifies the resource scope ('all documentation, architectural blueprints, API guides, and system runbooks'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_documentation_page and suggests broader coverage than search_knowledge_base.

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 when to use the tool: when a full-text search across documentation sources is needed. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it relates to search_knowledge_base, leaving the choice between those siblings to inference.

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